The Army

[Hate Is Art]

How should a Communist army be run?

A militia, no leaders? A regular army? A regular army where the soldiers elect their own officers?

Be interesting to hear the views of some Anarchists.

[h&s]

I think the original Soviet constitution stated that there was to be no army but an armed worker's militia. That sounds like a good idea to me...

[redstar2000]

You know there is a whole sub-culture of people who are into "war games" -- elaborate reconstructions of major battles and campaigns of the past as well as hypothetical conflicts of the future...not to mention all the paint-ball fanatics.

When the time comes to organize workers' militias and even a temporary army (should one be needed), I think the working class is going to turn up some exceptionally well-informed strategists...people who really know how to do this kind of stuff and get it right because they've spent decades working with those ideas and testing them out.

If you find yourself electing an officer...vote for one of those guys.

:redstar2000:

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

[Hate Is Art]

what a TA nerd with a moustache?

[h&s]

You know there is a whole sub-culture of people who are into "war games" -- elaborate reconstructions of major battles and campaigns of the past as well as hypothetical conflicts of the future..
lol, there is a guy who lives across the road from me who has his own Royalist replica cannon for the good ole' civil war re-enactment festivals! :lol:

not to mention all the paint-ball fanatics.


Come on, paintballing is just so fun - watching your macho mates writhing in agony on the floor from paintballs that "only hurt pussies" is not a sight to be missed! :lol:

[God of Imperia]

Having an army is a very dangerous thing in an anarchistic/communistic society. You'll have people with power over other people in a society which goal is total equalty.
Is it possible to fight a war without someone who directs all the movement? I don't think so. I don't think that ever happend and if it did I would love to know where, when and how ...
In time of war, officers have to be chosen, that's the only way. But they are only servants of the society, between wars, they are just as equal as others. Every soldiers can only obey an order if it's doesn't endanger the society (someone please give me another word for "society") ... If there is any suspicion about an officer who wants too much power or she/he gives an order that harms that society, he/she must be relieved of his command by the people. Without hesitation, even if she/he is a great leader. After that, he/she cannot be chosen again for military rank, she/he can only give advice, not orders.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 02:51 PM
You know there is a whole sub-culture of people who are into "war games" -- elaborate reconstructions of major battles and campaigns of the past as well as hypothetical conflicts of the future...not to mention all the paint-ball fanatics.

When the time comes to organize workers' militias and even a temporary army (should one be needed), I think the working class is going to turn up some exceptionally well-informed strategists...people who really know how to do this kind of stuff and get it right because they've spent decades working with those ideas and testing them out.

If you find yourself electing an officer...vote for one of those guys.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
YAY I paintball, play counter strike (tactician) and have an uncle in the SAS :D

Please vote Thomas :D


I think that at first a militia ia a good idea but they worries would be the lack of organisation and training. Personally I think we should have a small army, purely defensive. Consisting of specially trained special ops style soldiers who are of an equal rank and decide on things using a democratic approach. This would allow a strong capable army to exist while not taking away freedom or choice.

[God of Imperia]

During a battle there is no time for democratic desicions ...
You can't vote for what to do next when another army is trying to kill you.
Counterstrike isn't real, you don't get a respawn when you're dead and when your life is at the line, things will look differently. You can't compare real combat and pc-gaming.

[ComradeRed]

You vote BEFORE the battle, otherwise you do have a sticky-whicket.

[bunk]

counter strike tactical? :lol: Try full spectrum warrior for MOUT skills.

[MiniOswald]

I dunno I think u need a proper army, i mean look at russia in WW2, b4 they got their act together and formed a proper army, they were being slaughtered, crushed in their thousands. You cant just send hundreds of guys at a machine gun in the hope it'll run out of ammo or miss someone, u gta hve well trained guys, especially with the new age technological advances in weapons.

So im thinking armies definatly needed in the transitional stage of the world towards the left, but if the whole world had become the new society then perhaps it could be, fizzeled out.

then again perhaps not, we'd have to be quick to crush people b4 they become organised, cos if some say fascists popped up and got organised, with an army. they'd get a lot more support than u might think, there would be alot of disgrunteled peeps in the world, and if they got out of hand, the rest of us have no proper army to stop them.

[Osman Ghazi]

dunno I think u need a proper army, i mean look at russia in WW2, b4 they got their act together and formed a proper army, they were being slaughtered, crushed in their thousands. You cant just send hundreds of guys at a machine gun in the hope it'll run out of ammo or miss someone, u gta hve well trained guys, especially with the new age technological advances in weapons.


But Russia was not using the tactics that an armed worker's militia would have to use. Namely, defensive guerilla warfare. Of course, if you have a revolution that occurs during a crisis of capitalism, hopefully you won't have to worry about the forces of reaction being so unified as to need an army.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by God of [email protected] 3 2004, 10:15 AM
During a battle there is no time for democratic desicions ...
You can't vote for what to do next when another army is trying to kill you.
Counterstrike isn't real, you don't get a respawn when you're dead and when your life is at the line, things will look differently. You can't compare real combat and pc-gaming.
I was only joking, after someone mentioned that this generation is growing up with the mindset of war and tactics, I didn't seriously mean that! :P

[PRC-UTE]

and have an uncle in the SAS

Is he in Iraq now?

I could qualify as one of those military history nerds, I love tactical games, war rags, etc.
Slan.

[Thomas]

Nah they're winding him down for retirement now, he's just doing theory and shit with the army. Basically he's a leftist and they don't want him on the front line, they're keepin him away from the new guys and stuff. Pretty stupid really, part of the reason I started to look into Leftism.

[Funky Monk]

This idea of tacticians interests me, oobviously there have been some fine examples of great tacticians emerging through the ranks, but then again a great deal of succesful tacticians have come from backgrounds where they are taught how to do well. And lets be honest, given the operation of a militia you wouldnt really look for a tactician until one is really needed and by then it may be too late.

[ComradeRed]

Well, it wouldn't be like "hey, the capitalists just took our city, who's a good tactician to defend it?" Rarely are there situations like this, and even if this situation were to happen a neighbooring commune would help. There would be an election for a tactician(or a contest or something) and the creation of the militia at the same time for the tactician to train the militia.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by God of [email protected] 3 2004, 10:15 AM
During a battle there is no time for democratic desicions ...
You can't vote for what to do next when another army is trying to kill you.
Counterstrike isn't real, you don't get a respawn when you're dead and when your life is at the line, things will look differently. You can't compare real combat and pc-gaming.
I agree, you have to have a defence. And I think militia is the way to do it. Or even the police of the state; if there is any?

You never know about the respawning thing. I'm heading towards buddhism and the idea of reincarnation which is essentially respawning in a different form. :P

[Hate Is Art]

I agree, you have to have a defence. And I think militia is the way to do it. Or even the police of the state; if there is any?

Police means state, we don't need a state.

A well trained, mobile, working army with elected leaders is exactly what we need to defend the revolution.

[God of Imperia]

That might be true but even elected leaders can turn against society ... especially after a war, when men and leaders have proven themselves and stay loyal to their "brothers in arms".

[Hate Is Art]

Well there would be no need for them after the war is won? They would be dispanded. Also if you are elected there will be de-election if you aren't doing your job properly.

[God of Imperia]

That's what I'm talking about. The guy/girl is doing a great job, everyone loves him/her. All the soldiers would give their life for him/her and then you expect him just to dispand ... Probably he/she will, but what if he/she doesn't ...

[zhongjiezhe]

THE BEST ARMY IS NO ARMY！
IN ANCIENTE CHINA RULE：
http://warstudy.com/theory/ancient_east/su...i_bingfa.xml#a2 (http://warstudy.com/theory/ancient_east/sunzi_bingfa/sunzi_bingfa.xml#a2)

I HOPE IT WILL HELP YOU。

YOUNGER，TODAY MARSTER YOUR LOVE SKILL。
THAT ARE YOUR BEST WEAPON FOR TORMMORER！

VIVA CHE！

[Hate Is Art]

I can see where your coming from, but no one person will have control, if he trys to take over, he will be stopped.

[God of Imperia]

If that is true, then it's ok.

Btw, has anyone ever read utopia?
He said that everyone in their free time practised in the use of arms.
Not forced, just when you feel like it. Maybe that makes sence, a lot of people feel the need to protect their country and I can't see anything bad about it.

When there is the need for an army you can just call upon those that are trained for it (if there are enough).

[RABBIT - THE - CUBAN - MILITANT]

A Communist society should have an army not for the sheer fact of defense but to organize the people in to a stronger collective and give people an opportunity to work and to protect the homeland at the same time

But militias are a good idea too for people who don’t want to commit to the army, maybe there could be like weekly trying or some kind of program like what volunteer firefighters have.

[h&s]

to work and to protect the homeland at the same time

A Communist army should have nothing to do with protecting individual countries and their borders. Just what do you think Marx would have thought of that? ;)

[Se7en]

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 11 2004, 08:53 AM
to work and to protect the homeland at the same time...

A Communist army should have nothing to do with protecting individual countries and their borders.
just what i was thinking. i can't this whole idea of "homeland."

[RABBIT - THE - CUBAN - MILITANT]

What I mean by the home land is the Communist state (all of them) because you can’t expect there not to be problems with being a Communist country in one way or anther in this day and age. History has always shown aggression between states because of political views alone.

[Eddie999]

Surely Marx envisaged communism to be a worldwide thing, and not just having it existing in one state (Like Stalin wanted with his 'socialism in one country' theory). Therefore, if the whole world was communist then no army would be needed as there would not be individual states so there could be no conflict between them.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by The Arcadian [email protected] 8 2004, 09:52 PM
I agree, you have to have a defence. And I think militia is the way to do it. Or even the police of the state; if there is any?

Police means state, we don't need a state.

A well trained, mobile, working army with elected leaders is exactly what we need to defend the revolution.
Will leaders be elected before a war is in place? During? How will they know who is the best person to lead an army if there isn't a formal army? Some people may seem great in a peaceful situation, but under pressure, could easily break. That would just lead to more problems. If we're going to have military leaders they should be trained military leaders.

So we won't have anyway of upholding laws at all times? Or will the militia be the police too?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I'm inclined to think Militias, and autonomous (I mean, some degree of co-ordination is a necessity) action are generally preferable in warring against the capitalists. Given the nature of modern warfare, I can only imagine a conventional army be slaughtered rather quickly.

Looking to Iraq who has been more effective against the United States? "Terrorists" or Iraq's standing army (Which no longer exists).

[God of Imperia]

That is not even an option, bombing people every day, even schools!!! There is a difference between guerilla warfare and their bombings!!! What they do can not be justified in any way, sure, a struggle for freedom will always have it causualties, but not the way they do it. Never.

If you have a formal army you'll get in trouble sooner or later, leaders will be chosen before war, but they can be changed at any time when this is necessary.
The idea behind a militia is that everyone has trained themselves, not everyone will be suited for leadership, but we'll see who is.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

To clarify, I didn't mean to say I stood by the specific methods or goals of the Iraqi resistance - just that terrorism seems an extremely effective method of undermining control, and combatting a superior force, as opposed to traditional military methods.
Naturally, in opposing hollow Islamist/National Liberation/etc. ideologies would inform a very different set of targets, and aim to inspire terror in a very different group of people.

[God of Imperia]

So are you saying that we should have a guerilla army? Because I think that's the best way to defeat a conventional army, but still, even that depends on what kind of place you're fighting.

Or are you talking about bombing targets and sabotage things and then go hide, without actually fighting? That might be very effective if you just want to annoy your enemies, but I can't see someone win with that tactic...

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

If you can find enough committed revolutionaries in yr particular space to form an effective guerilla force, you're welcome to it . . .

[dso79]

Originally posted by God of [email protected] 14 2004, 06:19 PM
So are you saying that we should have a guerilla army? Because I think that's the best way to defeat a conventional army, but still, even that depends on what kind of place you're fighting.


A guerrilla army can't defeat a conventional army. It might be able to chase away a foreign occupation army, by making the costs of occupation higher than the benefits, but it is unable to conquer and hold territory. Guerrilla warfare is a great way to start a revolution, but to be able to take over the country, the guerrilla force needs to change into a conventional army.

When a communist state has been established, it needs a strong conventional army to defend itself against hostile countries. It also needs some sort of paramilitary force to maintain law and order. Leaders should not be elected, but selected on the basis of their qualities. Equality and democracy in an army lead to chaos and make it ineffective.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

And that, "comrade" is why I'm absolutely opposed to conventional armies.

Sod yr "Communist country", you sound like a Stalinist lackey. If our goal is to actually overthrow current society, and build anew from the ashes that's hardly a coherant program. Our praxis and theory ought to be compatable - building an army; using it to establish a nation state in which an elite minority has a monopoly on violence? We might as well become bourgeoisie politicians. The differences are only superficial.

[dso79]

I'm aware that it sounds a bit Stalinist, but I just don't expect a global revolution to ever happen. Revolutions might happen in certain countries where the conditions are right, but the communists won't last long unless they're able to defend themselves. Governments in surrounding countries and other capitalist countries are likely to feel threatened and will try to invade.

[God of Imperia]

What's the point of defending a nation which ends up like stalinism anyway? That's not what I would fight for. Nah, we can't talk about these things now or here. We should have a real fight and then we can discuss about what should be done.

[RedAnarchist]

Communist country is an horrible oxymoron. When the bourgoisie go down, so will the borders!

We dont need an army in a Communist society - whilst the violence in the revolution would have been necessary, the society should be pacifist and neutral. There should be no war but class war!

Why paramilitaries? Arent they just the right-wing version of guerillas, dso?

[dso79]

What's the point of defending a nation which ends up like stalinism anyway?

I'm not saying the nation itself should be Stalinist, but an army just needs a high degree of control to be effective.


Why paramilitaries? Arent they just the right-wing version of guerillas, dso?

It sounds right-wing because the media always refer to the Colombian AUC as paramilitaries, while they call fighters from ELN and FARC guerrillas. However, I don't think paramilitary necessarily refers to a right-wing group (or guerrilla to a left-wing group). What I meant was a force that can carry out police duties and provide internal security.


Communist country is an horrible oxymoron. When the bourgoisie go down, so will the borders!

The borders will only go down if revolutions happen in every country at the same time. How can that ever be achieved?


the society should be pacifist and neutral

How are we going to defend ourselves against the cappies, nazis, common criminals, etc, that will inevitably threaten this new society?

[Valkyrie]

Yes, whoever said "The best army is NO Army." right on. The reasons people go to war are never justified. There is no good reason. and you can ask how do you get from that point to this point when one country can be invaded by another with advance weapontry. The answer is that the weapons industry must be phased out. No more making weapons, no more making parts.

[God of Imperia]

No army, I agree on that, but people should be able to defend themselves. That's all they have to do, to be able to do.

[DaCuBaN]

Ever seen the film "Tremors"?

If so, you've seen my "communist army" :D

[Red Star Rising]

I'm sorry friends, but there will never be a world socialist revolution. As much as that would drive me to the highest state of joy, the capitalists will always have a hold in the world. Those who would strive for a system without countries, boarders, or armies are looking for something that cannot be attained. People will always have their differences, and we will always be pitting one country against another in war.

Thus we would need an army to defend our country from those who oppose us, and a military cannot be run effectively through democratic principles. While i believe that the military should be controlled by the civilian population through democratic means, the military itself would have to remain hierarchical if it were to be an effective fighting unit.

On a further note, a militia army is basically useless. A well-trained standing army is a must, if survival is one of our basic interests. While I'm totally for a militia of the people, using militia fighers as regular troops will result in horrific battlefield effectiveness. Also, more specialised roles require large doses of liberal training, such as pilots of all but the most simple military vehicles.

However, this all pertains to after the revolution and we are an established entity, to refrain from the use of nation. I'm all for a guerilla army in the revolution, if violence is needed.

Spread the love all. Peace.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm sorry friends, but there will never be a world socialist revolution. As much as that would drive me to the highest state of joy, the capitalists will always have a hold in the world.

How odd. Your username suggests that you are a communist. I suggest you either change your name or change ideology sharpish.


Those who would strive for a system without countries, boarders, or armies are looking for something that cannot be attained.

Sez you.


People will always have their differences, and we will always be pitting one country against another in war.

And what makes you think our differences will always manifest in the form of international antagonism?


While I'm totally for a militia of the people, using militia fighers as regular troops will result in horrific battlefield effectiveness. Also, more specialised roles require large doses of liberal training, such as pilots of all but the most simple military vehicles.

Militia troops are not meant to be used on a normal battlefield. They are meant to be used in geurilla warfare. Their strength is in hit and run attacks. A man defending his home and his friends will be as dedicated as any trained soldier. Plus militia will only need to use "simple vehicles" (You should note that tanks are not that much harder to drive than normal cars - It's helicopters and planes that tend to be more complicated)

The only reason one needs a standing army is in order to take and hold enemy territory - We may need to do this but I find it hard to believe we need an aggressive attacking force.


Ever seen the film "Tremors"?

If so, you've seen my "communist army" :D

So is your communist army hicks with shotguns or man-eating worms? or both?

[gaf]

Originally posted by The Arcadian [email protected] 2 2004, 09:59 AM
How should a Communist army be run?

A militia, no leaders? A regular army? A regular army where the soldiers elect their own officers?

Be interesting to hear the views of some Anarchists.
get to me make my life worst than it is and i will not need an army to get milk out of your nose