Lenin's true nature.

[redtrigger]

I have been a member for a while now and noticed many people have Lenin as their avatar. After reading this quote, I am sure you will change.

"Classes are led by parties, and parties are led by induviduals... The will of a class is sometimes fullfilled by a dictator."- Vladimir Lenin

He claimed to be the people's revolutionary, yet he never visited a farm or a factory, he wanted power and saw Marx's idea as a way to get the populace to follow him. Lenin wanted power, he even admitting it saying that he was more interested in power than Marxist doctrine. Some of you may idolize him, I call him a traitor of the working class.

[The Feral Underclass]

I wouldn't be suprised in the slightest if this was true, but what's the context of the quote? Where is it from?

You need to provide a source to make this legitimate.

[BOZG]

Source please.

[BOZG]

I found one site that claims it's sourced from David Shub's biography of Lenin but do you know a proper source.

[Xvall]

I can only find one site, and it's geocities. I think redtrigger is going to have to try a little harder.

[Hiero]

Who cares anyway?

[Vladimir_Iljich_Ivanov_Lenin]

He claimed to be the people's revolutionary, yet he never visited a farm or a factory, he wanted power and saw Marx's idea as a way to get the populace to follow him. Lenin wanted power, he even admitting it saying that he was more interested in power than Marxist doctrine. Some of you may idolize him, I call him a traitor of the working class.

You probably read a bourgeois biography of Lenin, to think lenin did not visit a factory or a farm in his life is not factual and false. I would like to have a source for that qoute.

[Anti-Capitalist1]

I want a source, too.

[Anti-Prophet]

I got a couple of quotes:

"It is... the consciousness of men that determines their existence..."-Marx
Apperantly Marx was an idealist :P

"Life is... evil, oppression and violence..."-Trotsky
:(

"We are... utopians, we... "dream" of dispensing at once with all administration, with all subordination."-Lenin
:D

"It follows that under communism there remains... the bourgeoisie!"-Lenin


"...the proletariat...smash...the earth..."-Lenin
:unsure:

[RagsToRevolution]

The beauty of the quotation system...

[NovelGentry]

I got a couple of quotes:

"It is... the consciousness of men that determines their existence..."-Marx
Apperantly Marx was an idealist

"Life is... evil, oppression and violence..."-Trotsky

"We are... utopians, we... "dream" of dispensing at once with all administration, with all subordination."-Lenin

"It follows that under communism there remains... the bourgeoisie!"-Lenin


"...the proletariat...smash...the earth..."-Lenin

This had me laughing for a long time.

[The Feral Underclass]

"I...eat...babies"
- Stalin

[Hiero]

Before Lenin was shot he had just come from a factory i think.

[Comité De Salut Public]

Lenin was a genius. And I don't like Lenin critics any more than I like snot up my nose.

[Anti-Prophet]

"Classes are led by parties, and parties are led by induviduals... The will of a class is sometimes fullfilled by a dictator."- Vladimir Lenin

Even if Lenin did say this i would agree with him and i think most leftists would.

"Classes are led by parties, and parties are led by induviduals..."

Its true that most of the time it is the bourgeoisie that controle the bourgeosie parties but im sure at some point in history the bourgeoisie parties led the bourgeosie. The Republican party today may even be an example (its possible but i cant prove it).

"The will of a class is sometimes fullfilled by a dictator."

That has happend several times in history. As far back as the Napoleonic Empire the bourgeoisie class has used a dictator to secure their rule and to fullfille their class interests. Other examples are Hitler, Franco, Pinochet etc..

[CaptinAnarchy124]

Originally posted by Comité De Salut [email protected] 10 2004, 01:56 PM
Lenin was a genius. And I don't like Lenin critics any more than I like snot up my nose.
How was he a genius? After he took power, he turned against many of those who worked to make a worker state. He destroyed unions and communes across Russia, which led to the horrible despotic rule of Stalin.

"And the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. We must suppress them in order to free humanity from wage slavery, their resistance must be crushed by force; it is clear that there is no freedom and no democracy where there is suppression and where there is violence."-Lenin

So basically he says we must preserve freedom and democracy, by crushing it... I have it sourced as well.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...rev/ch05.htm#s2 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s2)
Found in part 2. "The Transition from Capitalism to Communism"

[wellis]

you will never know the true nature of you best friend .why bother with a 150 years old one who is dead and can't t give you a clue?

[Maksym]

Originally posted by CaptinAnarchy124+Dec 10 2004, 08:37 PM--> (CaptinAnarchy124 @ Dec 10 2004, 08:37 PM)
Comité De Salut [email protected] 10 2004, 01:56 PM
Lenin was a genius. And I don't like Lenin critics any more than I like snot up my nose.
How was he a genius? After he took power, he turned against many of those who worked to make a worker state. He destroyed unions and communes across Russia, which led to the horrible despotic rule of Stalin.

"And the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. We must suppress them in order to free humanity from wage slavery, their resistance must be crushed by force; it is clear that there is no freedom and no democracy where there is suppression and where there is violence."-Lenin

So basically he says we must preserve freedom and democracy, by crushing it... I have it sourced as well.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...rev/ch05.htm#s2 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s2)
Found in part 2. "The Transition from Capitalism to Communism" [/b]
Are you serious? Read your quote again. :rolleyes:

[Anti-Prophet]

So basically he says we must preserve freedom and democracy, by crushing it... I have it sourced as well.

:lol: Like maksym said: "Read your quote again." Lenin is not saying that at all.

What Lenin is saying is that freedom and democracy for the bourgeoisie needs to be crushed by force in order to create freedom and democracy for the oppressed, i.e the proletariat and peasantry.

[BOZG]

I nearly pissed myself laughing when I read CaptinAnarchy's post.

[Anti-Prophet]

I found the soucre for the first half of the quote:
Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder:
"Left-Wing" Communism in Germany The Leaders, the Party, the Class, the Masses
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...20/lwc/ch05.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch05.htm)

Heres the full paragraph:


The mere presentation of the question—"dictatorship of the party or dictatorship of the class; dictatorship (party) of the leaders, or dictatorship (party) of the masses?"—testifies to most incredibly and hopelessly muddled thinking. These people want to invent something quite out of the ordinary, and, in their effort to be clever, make themselves ridiculous. It is common knowledge that the masses are divided into classes, that the masses can be contrasted with classes only by contrasting the vast majority in general, regardless of division according to status in the social system of production, with categories holding a definite status in the social system of production; that as a rule and in most cases—at least in present-day civilised countries—classes are led by political parties; that political parties, as a general rule, are run by more or less stable groups composed of the most authoritative, influential and experienced members, who are elected to the most responsible positions, and are called leaders. All this is elementary. All this is clear and simple. Why replace this with some kind of rigmarole, some new Volap?k? On the one hand, these people seem to have got muddled when they found themselves in a predicament, when the party’s abrupt transition from legality to illegality upset the customary, normal and simple relations between leaders, parties and classes. In Germany, as in other European countries, people had become too accustomed to legality, to the free and proper election of "leaders" at regular party congresses, to the convenient method of testing the class composition of parties through parliamentary elections, mass meetings the press, the sentiments of the trade unions and other associations, etc. When, instead of this customary procedure, it became necessary, because of the stormy development of the revolution and the development of the civil war, to go over rapidly from legality to illegality, to combine the two, and to adopt the "inconvenient" and "undemocratic" methods of selecting, or forming, or preserving "groups of leaders"—people lost their bearings and began to think up some unmitigated nonsense. Certain members of the Communist Party of Holland, who were unlucky enough to be born in a small country with traditions and conditions of highly privileged and highly stable legality, and who had never seen a transition from legality to illegality, probably fell into confusion, lost their heads, and helped create these absurd inventions.

EDIT:

I found the second half:
Ninth Congress of the R.C.P.(B.)
4:Speech On Economic Development
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/mar/29.htm

paragraph:


On April 29, 1918, the All-Russia Central Executive Committee adopted a resolution fully endorsing the basic propositions set forth in this report and instructed its Presidium to recast them as theses representing the principal tasks of the Soviet government. We are thus reiterating what was approved two years ago in an official resolution of the All-Russia Central Executive Committee! And we are now being dragged back on a matter that was decided long ago, a matter which the All-Russia Central Executive Committee endorsed and explained, namely, that Soviet socialist democracy and individual management and dictatorship are in no way contradictory, and that the will of a class may sometimes be carried out by a dictator, who sometimes does more alone and is frequently more necessary. At any rate, the attitude towards the principles of corporate management and individual management was not only explained long ago, but was even endorsed by the All-Russia Central Executive Committee. In this connection our Congress is an illustration of the sad truth that instead of advancing from the explanation of questions of principle to concrete questions, we are advancing backward. Unless we get away from this mistake we shall never solve the economic problem.

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 01:24 AM
I nearly pissed myself laughing when I read CaptinAnarchy's post.
It's not "funny" as you put it - Captain Anarchy has a point. Lenin and his
associates destroyed the function of the worker's soviet's as anti-authorit
-arian organizations, made it into rubber stamps of State Beauracratic Cap
-italism and destroyed the rebellion of Kronstadt in 1921 due to "syndicalist
tendicies."

[Comité De Salut Public]

Originally posted by CaptinAnarchy124+Dec 10 2004, 08:37 PM--> (CaptinAnarchy124 @ Dec 10 2004, 08:37 PM)
Comité De Salut [email protected] 10 2004, 01:56 PM
Lenin was a genius. And I don't like Lenin critics any more than I like snot up my nose.
How was he a genius? After he took power, he turned against many of those who worked to make a worker state. He destroyed unions and communes across Russia, which led to the horrible despotic rule of Stalin.

"And the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. We must suppress them in order to free humanity from wage slavery, their resistance must be crushed by force; it is clear that there is no freedom and no democracy where there is suppression and where there is violence."-Lenin

So basically he says we must preserve freedom and democracy, by crushing it... I have it sourced as well.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...rev/ch05.htm#s2 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s2)
Found in part 2. "The Transition from Capitalism to Communism" [/b]
There you said it: "the despotic rule of Stalin." How is Lenin to blame for what Stalin did. Stalin was responsible for his own actions!!!!! The USSR was invaded in 1918 by the USA, UK, Japan, France, Czechoslovakia et al. How do you expect Lenin to do a perfect job under those conditions while the czar had squandered the riches of the country in WWI! That he did an admirable job under such circumstances is a miracle! Quite an accomplishment!

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Anti-Prophet+Dec 11 2004, 12:57 AM--> (Anti-Prophet @ Dec 11 2004, 12:57 AM)
So basically he says we must preserve freedom and democracy, by crushing it... I have it sourced as well.

:lol: Like maksym said: "Read your quote again." Lenin is not saying that at all.

What Lenin is saying is that freedom and democracy for the bourgeoisie needs to be crushed by force in order to create freedom and democracy for the oppressed, i.e the proletariat and peasantry. [/b]
The quote is not the best quote but the point is this...


Originally posted by capitainanarchy+--> (capitainanarchy)After he took power, he turned against many of those who worked to make a worker state. He destroyed unions and communes across Russia, which led to the horrible despotic rule of Stalin.[/b]

He did turn against people who helped secure him power, he did smash unions and communes and dialectically Stalin was the natural progression of Lenin.

Lenin paved the way for Stalin and the only objection to that comes from people who want to save face for Lenin and turn him into a hero. The oppresison started with him. It's simply a fact.


[email protected]
In the transition to socialism the dictatorship of the proletariat is inevitable, but it is not exercised by an organisation which takes in all industrial workers...What happens is that the Party, shall we say, absorbs the vanguard of the proletariat, and this vanguard exercises the dictatorship of the proletariat"


Lenin
When we are reproached with having established a dictatorship of one party...we say, "Yes, it is a dictatorship of one party! This is what we stand for and we shall not shift from that position." Our party aims to obtain political power for itself. There is not the least contradiction between soviet (i.e., socialist) democracy and the use of dictatorial power by a few persons.

The Trade Unions, The Present Situation and Trotsky's Mistakes (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm)

[filimarxist]

Let's not take quotes out of context please, we're not Michael Moore

"Political power comes from the barrel of a gun." -Mao Tse Tung
My god, what an evil man he was.

"I'm not a Marxist."- Karl Marx
The man obviously has an identity crisis

[The Feral Underclass]

Who are you refering to?

[filimarxist]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 11 2004, 10:25 AM
Who are you refering to?
The person who posted the lenin quote. I'm making a point at how something may sound bad if you deliberatly take it out of context. Like the Mao quote I mentioned, people mention that all the time to make a point of how evil Mao is. In reality Mao was explaining that political power lies in who has control over legitimate use of force and violence.

[Kaan]

"And the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. We must suppress them in order to free humanity from wage slavery, their resistance must be crushed by force; it is clear that there is no freedom and no democracy where there is suppression and where there is violence."-Lenin

This means that the former ruling class has to be suppressed out of existence in the new society, I don't see how a revolutionary can be against this.

[NovelGentry]

This means that the former ruling class has to be suppressed out of existence in the new society, I don't see how a revolutionary can be against this.

The question isn't whether that has to happen, it's a question of how it should happen. I do not agree with a Leninist vanguard in any sense of how it is organized and pushed. I do, however, believe a vanguard is necessary... in fact, I believe a vanguard is inevitable. The question is how it's formed, and more to the point how it functions and what it's overall purposes are in a practical sense of doing what it needs to do.

Should this vanguard be formed of elite revolutionaries who are to lead us into revolution and build our society after? I don't believe so. Instead I believe the vanguard forms naturally out of those revolutionaries that the rest of the revolutionary proletariat are going to follow. As such their power is derived not from themselves putting themselves in the position of leaders, but from the people putting them in that position. As such it is the people who will remain conscious of their position an in the end maintain control.

I also don't believe that dictatorship of the proletariat implies a singular dictator. It is the entire class who is to become the dictator, and as such a HUGE expansion of democracy is necessary. The proletariat as a whole will maintain legislative control on a local and national level (assuming it is a singular national struggle). The vanguard is to serve as an administrative body, organizing elections and votes (on both levels). Furthermore the vanguard should maintain control of military forces, military forces which are in no way to be outdone, and who serve no purpose but that of a formal presentation of populat militias. As such military power should never outweigh the power of the organized people's militia. Finally the vanguard is to oversee general executive tasks within the post-revolutionary economy. These tasks would include the construction and maintainance of what could only be considered a national credit system. Not credit in the traditional sense, but credit as a means of replacing money.

What must at ALL times remain in the hands of the working class is control of the means of production. This includes the means and methods of distribution. As such means are part of the means of production. This opposes very much the ideas of Lenin, where the means of production while "working for the proletariat" become centralized and state owned. In true socialist fashion this should NEVER happen, as it is that state seisure of the means of production which makes the state the new ruling class.

Anyway, that's just a general summary of my ideas. As you can see, I do believe in a post-revolutionary state, and I do believe in a vanguard, but hardly in the Leninist sense.

[Kaan]

I was merely pointing out that Lenin was not saying "We must oppress people so they can be free", and I also pretty much agree with you on the nature of the vangaurd and the dictatorship of the proletariat

[NovelGentry]

I was merely pointing out that Lenin was not saying "We must oppress people so they can be free", and I also pretty much agree with you on the nature of the vangaurd and the dictatorship of the proletariat

I do apologize if you saw me as implying that you were saying otherwise. I was merely trying to illustrate the grounds on which I think the majority of us disagree. I too would agree no revolutionary can say otherwise, in terms of oppressing the former ruling class, instead we argue on how to go about that without making it so we accidently oppress our own.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 02:05 PM
I believe the vanguard forms naturally out of those revolutionaries that the rest of the revolutionary proletariat are going to follow.
Only if those people allow it to. You have to ask yourself why they would allow it to?


As such their power is derived not from themselves putting themselves in the position of leaders

Effectively any person who becomes a leader is "putting themselves" into that position, they are effectively taking power for themselves.

When they are faced with the opportunity to be followed they make a conscious choice to lead. Regardless of whether the people want it. There is a choice.


As such it is the people who will remain conscious of their position an in the end maintain control.

So far you have proven that the consciousness of the people, in this situation, is to be led.


I also don't believe that dictatorship of the proletariat implies a singular dictator.

It never meant that to Lenin either.


It is the entire class who is to become the dictator,

How is that materially possible?


a HUGE expansion of democracy is necessary.

It could be argued that leadership negates democracy.


The proletariat as a whole will maintain legislative control on a local and national level (assuming it is a singular national struggle).

I very much agree with this.

What is important in this situation is to ensure that legislative bodies have no power. These assemblies must be for logistical and administrative responsibility only with workers taking delegate positions voted on from within the working class and alternated on a regular basis.

You then have to ask yourself, if this is the case, why is it necessary to have "leaders."


The vanguard is to serve as an administrative body, organizing elections and votes (on both levels).

What does this mean? What is "the vanguard"?


Furthermore the vanguard should maintain control of military forces,

Why does power have to be centralised in this way. The workers are capable enough to make legislative decisions but they're not capable enough to control the ability to defend themselves?


As such military power should never outweigh the power of the organized people's militia.

It doesn't make any sense? Why not just have workers militias?


Finally the vanguard is to oversee general executive tasks within the post-revolutionary economy. These tasks would include the construction and maintenance of what could only be considered a national credit system.

The point of a communist revolution is to hand over power to the workers. Not divide responsibility between a vanguard and the workers?

Are we to give them a ceremonial duty in making legislative decisions which so far don't amount to anything, and then leave the more complicated matters to the "leaders."

Do you not trust the workers?


What must at ALL times remain in the hands of the working class is control of the means of production. This includes the means and methods of distribution. As such means are part of the means of production. This opposes very much the ideas of Lenin, where the means of production while "working for the proletariat" become centralized and state owned. In true socialist fashion this should NEVER happen, as it is that state seisure of the means of production which makes the state the new ruling class.

What control are you talking about. So far, in your ideas, all this would be is symbolic rather than practical.

[NovelGentry]

Only if those people allow it to. You have to ask yourself why they would allow it to?

I agree only if they want it to, let me put it this way... I think they will always want to. If there is one thing that I truly do believe is "human nature" even though such talk is sinful among materialists, it is that we naturally form leaders amongst our groups. Certainly, not all groups will agree on leaders, and in other cases these groups leaders will be a smaller number of people in the group... a form of mutual leadership. In short, I don't think it's something they allow consciously. Certainly they disallow it consciously, as you anarchists do. And that is good, it serves to decentralize power as much as possible.


Effectively any person who becomes a leader is "putting themselves" into that position, they are effectively taking power for themselves.

I disagree, certainly they assume the power, and thus are the final say on whether they want the power. But it is not a power they necessarily take, it can be one that is given.


When they are faced with the opportunity to be followed they make a conscious choice to lead. Regardless of whether the people want it.

This is something we disagree on... I'm not talking about the opportunity to be followed, that is certainly a case of manipulation. This is not a seizing of oppurtunity. The power itself is placed within the hands of the people (assuming they are revolutionary they will realize this). Thus no one can ever take that power. I don't believe you can take power from truly revolutionary people, only reactionary.


So far you have proven that the consciousness of the people, in this situation, is to be led.

It is their very consciousness which allows them to be led or not, depending on how they see fit. Conscious people will not be led by someone they do not support.


It never meant that to Lenin either.

I'm well aware of that, but there was still a hierarchy which ended up giving way to such concentration of power. Not that this is what he wanted. Indeed Lenin's state was to be representative of the entire proletariat, and in certain aspects it was. Either way, the existence of it alone ensures it's alienation and eventual separation of that ideal.


How is that materially possible?

How is it not? Maybe in Lenin's time it was not -- and I've consistently said that Lenin and his vanguard and the government which followed after the revolution were all products of the material conditions which could not have necessarily been done differently. Why should we be sticking to these outdated paradigms?


It could be argued that leadership negates democracy.

Certainly if that leadership is not completely controlled by democracy, but that simply should not be the case. At all times the leadership should be controlled by the people to ensure that they truly are doing the peoples will. The people need not only the RIGHT to remove leadership that that disagree with, but the MEANS to do it aswell. These means will be forever secured in the hands of the people (Means of production and the peoples militia).


I very much agree with this.

What is important in this situation is to ensure that legislative bodies have no power. These assemblies must be for logistical and administrative responsibility only with workers taking delegate positions voted on from within the working class and alternated on a regular basis.

You then have to ask yourself, if this is the case, why is it necessary to have "leaders."

Indeed you have expanded upon the means for them maintaining legislative control. While you may agree with my idea that they must, you most certainly don't agree with my idea on how. The detail of which I will not go into here, and would much rather reserve for my book. Sorry, but you're gonna have to wait.


What does this mean? What is "the vanguard"?

Well initially the vanguard is established to conclude revolution. I don't believe a revolution can be truly successful without such a vanguard, without a unified and organized leadership. This isn't to say that I don't think people can overthrow the existing ruling class without one, they can, but to what end? Given that you are anarchist it would appear you believe they "organize themselves" through the pre-existing infrastructure which has been built up by a union. I don't believe a pre-existing infrastructure is useful or necessary, in fact I believe that such a pre-existing infrastructure (including leninist parties who are to become or spawn the vanguard from their ranks) are fallable. I believe people organize themselves, but only so far as it takes them to give way to natural leadership. This leadership will most likely grow out of those who are MOST revolutionary, those who are revered for their skills in making revolution on local levels a true possibility. There is no necessity for national organization prior to the revolution itself, if people are truly revolutionary it will happen with or without that organization. With that organization you only serve to give reactionary people a body to look to as the instigators, and the reactionaries will follow.

The vanguard would be a construct of those natural leaders. Those who have made the revolution a true possibility, those "revered." They would certainly become the first to organize and the first to create the administrative needs. I think too many people see revolution as a one day process -- I do not. I see a number of groups reconstructing society on a local level which then expands to a national level when organization is required between these groups. This is really not something I can explain in a single sentence, paragraph, or even a medium such as this. Once again, you will have to wait for my book.


Why does power have to be centralised in this way. The workers are capable enough to make legislative decisions but they're not capable enough to control the ability to defend themselves?

I fail to see how me promoting workers militias, particularly to the point that they must maintain dominance over the state military is in any way saying they cannot defend themselves.


It doesn't make any sense? Why not just have workers militias?

Who is to train these militias? To what end do we stop external threat? Are we to be in a position where we have to wait for people to attack before we defend? "Attack on the northern border... sound the alarm and we'll all mobilize to go fight." Militias are to be made up of workers, these workers should have other duties aside from constantly ensuring the security of the new nation. A centralized military makes this their job. Militias should be so wide spread that I would argue almost 90% of the population should be in one. This ensure that the resources for protecting ourselves are there, however, it does not ensure that the resources are consistently ready. A centralized military should be a constantly ready force, deployed widely to ensure security, and should be complemented by the militias.


The point of a communist revolution is to hand over power to the workers. Not divide responsibility between a vanguard and the workers?

Due to your question mark I'm not sure whether you are posing this as a question or as a statement. So let me treat it as both. No, it does not divide responsibility. What you would seem to be proposing is the jump from post-revolution directly to communism. I don't believe this to be a formula for great success. There needs to be an "oppression" of the ruling class which is enforced by the proletariat as a whole, not by single mobs who run people off their estate so that it may now be shared by community. Nor should this be the focus of everyone for any period of time past than what is necessary. You don't need a mob to do this, nor should you waste the resources of any large amount of people on it. The vanguard is designed to handle these administrative tasks... so that the people realize the equalization of existing wealth, and so that they see fair agrarian reform. In your scenario what stops a small mob from overtaking someone's estate without good cause or future purpose? A larger mob? It serves little end and to what ends it does serve it does so extremely inefficiently.


Are we to give them a ceremonial duty in making legislative decisions which so far don't amount to anything, and then leave the more complicated matters to the "leaders."

ALL legislative matters, no matter how simple or complicated are left directly up to the people, once again on a local and national level. The vanguard, is a tool of these people. This was slightly poor wording here, as the vanguard itself as a "vanguard" that is as a leadership organization does not extend past the initial organization which is laid out for a post-revolutionary society. Once that is in place the vanguard is turned into an administrative tool of the people... it is indeed a government, and would grow a great deal, but at each level it is designed to do the peoples will, not their own. In this sense, after the initial organization (which requires the vanguard's leadership) it is no longer a vanguard as it does not lead anything.


What control are you talking about. So far, in your ideas, all this would be is symbolic rather than practical.

Do you have some problem understanding what the means of production are and what control of them is to entail? The government has no say in the running of a factory, nor does it have any say in where the products of this factory go. It would be, however, the duty of the government to create the means for the people to handle this distribution efficiently. Say for example, needed websites which allow for the people to see where materials are needed, and where there are extra. The people themselves control the production and distribution.

[BOZG]

Firefox,
I was referring to the post where he attacks Lenin for pointing out the need to suppress the bourgeoisie. I'm not talking about the Soviets, you know we'll just disagree on that point. The same is true of Kronstadt.


TAT,
On the point about 'taking in all industrial workers', Lenin was very correct. Sections of the workers' do have reformist notions and prejudices. When a revolution occurs, it does not mean that every single worker reaches revolutionary consciousness. Do you think reactionary workers should be included? You seem to think that conscious develops equally amongst everyone.

Secondly, you consistantly argue against the vanguard on 'leadership' grounds yet most anarchists, or at least serious anarchists, recognise the need to form revolutionary organisations, though not the same as Leninist organisations. Does this not show that even anarchists recognise the need for class conscious activists to 'lead' revolutionary struggle or are these organisations just useless talking shops? If conscious develops so easily to a revolutionary conclusion, why bother being an activist, if the revolution is inevitable.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 04:26 PM
Sections of the workers' do have reformist notions and prejudices.
And then what?


When a revolution occurs, it does not mean that every single worker reaches revolutionary consciousness.

How is revolutionary consciousness defined? And how have you achieved a revolution in the first place?


Do you think reactionary workers should be included?

Reactionary in what way?

The workers should defend themselves from anyone who is activily attempting to subvert their gains, but someone who happens to believe in elements of bourgeois politics or have some prejudice should not be excluded from participating in revolutionary activities.

Our responsailiuty as class conscious revolutionaries is to educate people, not exclude them because they don't conform to our specially laid out conditions.


You seem to think that conscious develops equally amongst everyone.

No I don’t.


Secondly, you consistantly argue against the vanguard on 'leadership' grounds yet most anarchists, or at least serious anarchists, recognise the need to form revolutionary organisations

And you are taking the premise that having no leaders means no revolutionary organisation.

I, fortunately, do not take that premise. I am arguing against leadership. Not organisation.


Does this not show that even anarchists recognise the need for class conscious activists to 'lead' revolutionary struggle or are these organisations just useless talking shops?

As I’m sure you've researched, and if you haven't I’m surprised, Bakunin also talked about a revolutionary vanguard, but a vanguard of propagandists and agitators, rather than professional political organisers or leaders.

Class consciousness becomes so through action and it is the responsibility of a vanguard to attempt to empower workers through giving them the ability to control their struggle.

Yes, some have prejudices and some may not actually agree in class struggle, but that does not mean they should be led and controlled by a party structure.

It means that we have do try harder in convincing them. If our ideas cannot be accepted they certainly cannot be forced.


If conscious develops so easily to a revolutionary conclusion, why bother being an activist, if the revolution is inevitable.

Because that's absurd.

[BOZG]

How is revolutionary consciousness defined? And how have you achieved a revolution in the first place?

By reactionary, I meant someone who was might have a minority following but argues for a return to regulated capitalism for example. There are numerous examples that could be applied. Even someone with racial, sexual prejudices etc.

I'm not saying that the mass of workers is reactionary but that there could be a sizable minority with such sentiments.



The workers should defend themselves from anyone who is activily attempting to subvert their gains, but someone who happens to believe in elements of bourgeois politics or have some prejudice should not be excluded from participating in revolutionary activities.

Our responsailiuty as class conscious revolutionaries is to educate people, not exclude them because they don't conform to our specially laid out conditions

I'm not saying exclude them from participating or just condemn to the scrap heap but you don't put a nazi on an anti-fascist committee do you? Continue to argue, to influence and to debate but not put someone with reactionary opinions in a position where they can actually put or attempt to put these policies into action.

I think your points on 'leadership' and 'organisation' have been discussed enough times. We disagree on the role of the vanguard and the shape it takes, I don't think there's a need to argue it again.

I would equate the role of professional political organisers with being agitators and propagandists. There is a very healthy need for 'professional organisers' of any party to also phsyically work at least for periods of time. I understand the need for full-time members to keep things running smoothly but immersing yourself in actual work can do no harm and only helps to create a better understanding of the working class.

I also disagree with the attempts to push the vanguard as being a tiny group of people who wish to control everything. I believe that the ability to form a mass revolutionary party exists, one which would encompass the mass of the working class, though I'm sure you'll disagree because you can't accept Leninism as the supreme saviour of the people. :P

[The Feral Underclass]

I would just like to add, for the benefit of this debate, the definition of the word Leader[ship].

Anarchists are often acused of re-writing language to suit our [deluded] selves when we attack the idea of leaders within the workers movement.

I think that's extremly unfair considering that the communication and understanding of concepts etc are done through the interpretation of words and their meanings.

Effectivly we are being attacked for understanding the definition of words. Which is insane.


lead·er ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ldr)
n.
One that leads or guides.
One who is in charge or in command of others.

One who heads a political party or organization.
One who has influence or power, especially of a political nature.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Leader

[NovelGentry]

Indeed you had to make this public, as such my response will be equally public:

Apparently you don't understand how a dictionary works. The first definition given is what's called a primary definition. It is the first and foremost accepted definition of a word -- exclusive of all other definitions. They are listed in order of most accepted to least accepted. Thus as you can see it is not until the secondary definition where you run into problems. The type of leadership I speak of is well in the form of the primary definition. No such word change is needed.


For anyone who wants to see the definition in it's full text, including the numbers which denominate what are primary and what are secondary definitions:


lead·er Audio pronunciation of "leader" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ldr)
n.

1. One that leads or guides.
2. One who is in charge or in command of others.
3.
1. One who heads a political party or organization.
2. One who has influence or power, especially of a political nature.
4. Music.
1. A conductor, especially of orchestra, band, or choral group.
2. The principal performer in an orchestral section or a group.
5. The foremost animal, such as a horse or dog, in a harnessed team.
6. A loss leader.
7. Chiefly British. The main editorial in a newspaper.
8. leaders Printing. Dots or dashes in a row leading the eye across a page, as in an index entry.
9. A pipe for conducting liquid.
10. A short length of gut, wire, or similar material by which a hook is attached to a fishing line.
11. A blank strip at the end or beginning of a film or tape used in threading or winding.
12. Botany. The growing apex or main shoot of a shrub or tree.
13. An economic indicator.

EDIT: I would just like to note that without these numbers a leader would be equally a "A blank strip at the end or beginning of a film or tape used in threading or winding." as it would be a person of any sorts.

[The Feral Underclass]

This might all very well be true, but it doesn't negate my argument.

[NovelGentry]

Nor did I ever claim it did. I understand very well that you don't think leaders are necessary... I do. All I'm asking for you to understand is that what I call leaders are in no sense authoritarian or controlling, they are indeed at the whim of their followers, without people to follow them leaders are not leaders. The difference is why the people follow, is it at the barrel of a gun or because they recognize the great and altruistic qualities of these individuals?

Some may want it at the barrel of a gun, I do not.

[Vladimir_Lenin]

Lenin paved the way for Stalin

You say that as if it is a bad thing.


smash unions

I thought anarchists were against unions. And there is no need for unions in a socialist state.


I do, however, believe a vanguard is necessary... in fact, I believe a vanguard is inevitable.

You changed youre opinion again i see.

[NovelGentry]

You changed youre opinion again i see.

No, once again, this is the same thing I've said all along. Once again, the vanguard I'm talking about is not a Leninist vanguard.

I really don't feel I shoudl have to keep explaining this, and there are a number of people who will confirm that this is what I've said for a long time (if some of my other posts don't already do so).

EDIT: Here's a statement I made on October 10. This is in fact only the 4th time I even used the word Vanguard since I had signed up in August. The other three times were all in arguments over Leninist Vanguards. This statement, made two months ago clearly shows that I have expressed what I consider as a need for a vanguard for at least two months. I'm not gonna say about before then, cause honestly I'm not sure what I thought, it is quite certainly that my specific ideology developed quite rapidly around this time. Which is when I wrote the paper on Post-Revolutionary Society.

Now for the quotes:

You're idea of the vanguard is far too focused on the Leninist idea of the vanguard -- you fail to see anything but this style of vanguard as a vanguard. Much like the idea that you are too incapable of seeing a state as anything other than centralized and in totalitarian control, you are unable to see a vanguard as anything but this. This is not a flaw in the vanguard model itself, but a flaw in a centralized vanguard model.

Repeat process 800, or however many times you like, it's not going to change the fact that the majority of the working class who hears our message is going to stop at reform. Once again why I believe in a vanguard. The Bourgeoisie is NOT stupid, they will revert to socialist compromise before they face force, and I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but social compromise is ENOUGH for the majority of the people.

As I stated here, and stated the last time you said I changed my mind, which was only a few days ago. I DO, and HAVE supported a vanguard, what I DO NOT and DID NOT support is the Leninist style of a vanguard.

EDIT Number 2:

Another Quote:

It's not invisible, I'm just not going to concede that we're in exactly the same position. This is why I don't dismiss the vanguard completely, I assume it needs to change form.

EDIT Number 3:

A Quote from Earlier this month:

It is not we, as in me and you, or even "we" as in the sense of any given party who need to accomplish it. It is the working class people as a whole, and they will accomplish it not because we lead them into it, but because they lead themselves. Once the working class is at this point where they are able to lead themselves, then and only then can "leaders" or the vanguard fullfill it's primary function, which is the organization and solidarity of the movement. This is a lot different from the Leninist idea where the vanguard in essence is the desired meat to make the revolution happen -- the people have to be that meat, we as communists are only distinguished from the rest of the proletariat by the Marxist terms:

----------------------

There was in fact no discussion of a vanguard by myself in November it seems. In fact, there are only 9 threads in which I mention the term vanguard. Six of those date after my first mention of what i thought of the vanguard in October, 3 pre-dating that as critiques of Leninist vanguard.

Please don't pull this bullshit tactic of trying to make me look like a "flip-flopper" as I said before, you sound like Bush attacking Kerry. It's used propaganda which is easily proved false. I'm not going ot say I've never changed my ideas. In fact, I would disagree with much of what I said in earlier posts from this board, as I said, around the middle of October I really began to develop what I thought could work. That ideology is solidified now more than ever and has been expressed in some detail in my posts on this board and within my writing.

Did I EVER change my opinion? On certain things I most certainly have, with no doubt for the better. But i don't think there's anyone who goes through life learning more things and never changes their opinion or belief, if that were the case I wouldn't even be Marxist. So really, if you're gonna try to discredit something about me, discredit the idea itself, not it's origin.

[Anti-Prophet]

One thing we have to remember is the state of Russia during Lenins rule. Russia was still only a semi-industrialised isolated nation, the working class was a small uneducated minority, imperialists were attacking from all sides (for a while), and on top of that there was civil war. You simply cannot establish socialism, communism or even a proper dictatorship of the proletariat in those conditions. No matter how much Lenin tried, the dictatorship of the proletariat could not survive unless it came in the form of an authoritarian dictatorship of one party. His hope was that a dictatorship of the proletariat would be established temporarily as a dictatorship of the bolshevik party until the Russian working class had help from the international revolution.


We are far from having completed even the transitional period from capitalism to socialism. We have never cherished the hope that we could finish it without the aid of the international proletariat... The final victory of socialism in a single country is of course impossible. -Lenin, LCW, vol.26, pp.465.

But of course the dictatorship of the bolshevik party can only be isolated from the proletariat for so long before it turnes against the proletariat and becomes an organistation of corrupt bureaucrats. Sadly the international revolution never happend and thus this is exactly what happend. If the international revolution had been successful we would all be looking at Lenin as a great revolutionary hero instead of the dictator that he was.

[NovelGentry]

But of course the dictatorship of the bolshevik party can only be isolated from the proletariat for so long before it turnes against the proletariat and becomes an organistation of corrupt bureaucrats. Sadly the international revolution never happend and thus this is exactly what happend. If the international revolution had been successful we would all be looking at Lenin as a great revolutionary hero instead of the dictator that he was.

Indeed many of us understand this. I think most of the people who are not leninists agree strongly that the revolution occured at a bad time. It indeed made no sense there whatsoever. There are some of us who respect Lenin a great deal, like myself, who still believe he was wrong. There are other things to recognize too, Leninism indeed makes sense for the conditions of his time, but does it make sense for today? This is why I simply can't understand the position of the modern day Leninist, unless they remain in a very backwards 3rd world country. Anyone who lives in an advanced capitalist nation who thinks that Leninism is the key to their revolution and it's success in achieving socialism, at least in my book, is mad.

[Vladimir_Lenin]

Anyone who lives in an advanced capitalist nation who thinks that Leninism is the key to their revolution and it's success in achieving socialism, at least in my book, is mad.

Marxism-Leninism can be achieved in advanced capitalist nation just as well it can be achieved in a 3rd world nation. It is maoism which is impossible in the advanced capitalist world, they focus on farmers, unlike Marxism-leninism which is directed against the ploretariat and the farmers.

[Anti-Prophet]

...unlike Marxism-leninism which is directed against the ploretariat and the farmers.

nuff said

[RagsToRevolution]

The irony of typos.

[CaptinAnarchy124]

>>You say that as if it is a bad thing.

Because it was.

>>I thought anarchists were against unions. And there is no need for unions in a socialist state.

Anarchists are not against unions, in fact they support them, just not in the historical context of Union Bosses.

And to the earlier posts, I used that quote because I was showing that a man can say one thing while doing the opposite. And how is supporting a dictator going to free your people? I never have quite understood that one.

[NovelGentry]

Marxism-Leninism can be achieved in advanced capitalist nation just as well it can be achieved in a 3rd world nation.

I have little doubt of this... I have great doubts of whether it can be sustained or not.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 01:07 PM
"Classes are led by parties, and parties are led by induviduals... The will of a class is sometimes fullfilled by a dictator."- Vladimir Lenin
What a shocking, outrageous statment of a perfectly undeniable truism - almost a platitude - about history. What next? Will we discover that Lenin believed that water is wet?

This is almost as good as some Democrat I saw on CNN, fulminating against Rumsfeld's "shocking" statement that "you go to war with the army you have." Like, duh, with what else?

Anybody who knows anything about world history knows that many historically progressive tasks have been carried out by means of absolutist regimes. That's true for various stages of history reflecting the rise of various classes.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by NovelGentry
A centralized military should be a constantly ready force, deployed widely to ensure security, and should be complemented by the militias.

I disagree.

In fact, I think a centralized military leads directly to another Tienamien Square.

1. A centralized military develops a consciousness of its own...that steadily diverges from the consciousness of civilian workers.

2. That consciousness becomes, over time, fascist.

3. Eventually, it produces leaders that are either willing to collaborate with civilian reactionaries or will choose to act on their own to re-establish a fascist variant of class society.

Just think of the "military virtues"...and ask what they have in common with communist values.

Nothing!

:redstar2000:

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

[NovelGentry]

I disagree.

In fact, I think a centralized military leads directly to another Tienamien Square.

1. A centralized military develops a consciousness of its own...that steadily diverges from the consciousness of civilian workers.

2. That consciousness becomes, over time, fascist.

3. Eventually, it produces leaders that are either willing to collaborate with civilian reactionaries or will choose to act on their own to re-establish a fascist variant of class society.

Just think of the "military virtues"...and ask what they have in common with communist values.

Nothing!

If indeed the military is alienated from the people and those who control the military are not the people. If the means of production and the legislative forces are within the hands of the people I don't see how that can happen. Nor do I see how the military can become alienated from the people since they would work directly with worker militias.

EDIT: on a side note it would appear you're thinking of a military in a very traditional sense... by no means would this military resemble a traditional military force.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by NovelGentry
If indeed the military is alienated from the people and those who control the military are not the people. If the means of production and the legislative forces are within the hands of the people I don't see how that can happen. Nor do I see how the military can become alienated from the people since they would work directly with worker militias.

It happens because "what you do" has a tremendous and ultimately dominating effect on "what you think".

If you are a "full-time soldier", you look at matters differently than people who are part-timers in a militia.

For example, you tend to see civilian politics as "messy", "undisciplined", "disorganized", and even "corrupt". You compare it with your own full-time military life -- organized with clear channels of command and responsibility, well disciplined, and "devoted to service" rather than vulgar self-advancement. (I should add that police also develop this "mind set".)

Naturally, over time, you develop a contempt for civilians...they "don't understand" how to "get things done".

The thought begins to occur to you that perhaps it's "necessary from time to time" for the military to "step in" and "save the nation".

Historically, class societies have been "bedeviled" with this problem; they need a professional military both for defense and to take advantage of opportunities for profitable aggression. Yet armies have a distinct tendency to "act for themselves" -- deposing emperors and presidents alike, killing large numbers of civilians, etc.

The response thus far has been the attempt to create a "cultural bias" in favor of civilian control of the military. But that's a far more fragile cultural artifact than most people believe...because it tries to pretend that material force is "not" as powerful as a cultural bias.

Material force, if applied in sufficient amounts, is always more powerful in the immediate circumstances. The pen may be "mightier" than the sword in the long run...but here and now, bet on the sword!

It's true that the working class is the one class with material force of its own -- it can simply refuse to work and the professional military is helpless, no matter what it does.

But the "indiscipline" of the masses makes that a difficult response to organize...it's happened, but very rarely.

I don't think there's any reason to believe that a professional military would act any different in a post-capitalist society than it has historically. The same factors would be operating; the same differences in outlook would exist; etc. Perhaps the more highly-developed and conscious working class of that era would "easily" call and implement a general strike against any military presumptions...and the army would have to "back down".

But why chance it? Why create a "special group" within post-capitalist society that will preserve and even increase precisely the kind of crap that you're trying to get rid of?

It's not that you're even likely to "gain" any real additional "protection" from a foreign aggressor...look at the miserable response of the Iraqi army compared to the real and sustained resistance of Iraqi civilians.

Wouldn't it be the same for us? The masses will fight indefinitely for what they think is worth fighting for; professional soldiers will fight for a little while and then, if things go poorly, surrender or run away.

Thus I assert: forget the centralized "full-time" army. You have nothing to gain and quite a bit to lose.

:redstar2000:

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

[NovelGentry]

For example, you tend to see civilian politics as "messy", "undisciplined", "disorganized", and even "corrupt". You compare it with your own full-time military life -- organized with clear channels of command and responsibility, well disciplined, and "devoted to service" rather than vulgar self-advancement. (I should add that police also develop this "mind set".)

So I suppose then that we're getting rid of all other jobs that require such discipline? You see this as an alienation built on the working model, but I'm not sure where I ever set down a working model in detail. I simply said it would become the military's responsibility to consistently protect the revolution.

Aside from this, the alienation of the military would seem to have little do with the discipline it commands, and a hell of a lot more to do with the position traditional military is in. The traditional military, like the police, is an organization who is given power above the people, they are done so because it is argued that sometimes the people would need to be secured from themselves. I don't see how this even comes in to play when in the end it is the people who are commanding them.

"Another woman turned out to be the doctor for the block. The people in the block had built a two-story house for her with material supplied by the government. She had a medical history on everyone in the neighborhood, made house calls, and practiced preventative medicine; her income did not depend on people getting sick because she received a fixed salary paid by the government. A small, Afro-Cuban woman was the CDR chairperson. She coordinated the work of the Committee and had a Cuban flag in front of the house. Why? So the police could find her. They couldn't arrest anyone in the block without the Committee's permission. No Stalin could arise in Cuba."

This is an excerpt from an article on Cuban vs. American democracy. Think of this sort of model (except slightly more decentralized) on a local level, and this same model except extremely decentralized on a national level. I'm not going to pretend that a socialist nation is not going to have enemies, and I'm not going to pretend that workers militia (particularly in a very large nation) are going to make a lot of sense. The needed mobilization is a slow process, such military forces would already be IN place. I just don't see workers militias as having a fast enough response to certain threats and as I said the worker militia should at all times outnumber state military forces, and more to the point have access to the very same things they have.


Naturally, over time, you develop a contempt for civilians...they "don't understand" how to "get things done".

Your job is to serve these people, PERIOD. You ARE these people. Your job is equally important to anyone elses job, and their job likewise is equally important to yours. The only place you differ is in what your job aims to do. Without them you have no weapons, without them you have no equipment, end of story. Above all you are protecting them, not the state. This should be indoctrined in such military forces from the day they come into existence.


The thought begins to occur to you that perhaps it's "necessary from time to time" for the military to "step in" and "save the nation".

The military works complement the militia, and thus they are in no position and would never have the resources to "save the nation" from any significant threat. They do, however, have the ability to respond to threat immediately with weapon in hand. Certainly this also depends on the nature of the threat. It would for instance, not be the military's job to respond to a riot. It would be, however, the military's job to respond active invasion, airborne and naval attacks, etc.


Historically, class societies have been "bedeviled" with this problem; they need a professional military both for defense and to take advantage of opportunities for profitable aggression. Yet armies have a distinct tendency to "act for themselves" -- deposing emperors and presidents alike, killing large numbers of civilians, etc.

Historically militaries have been given too much power, because they are DESIGNED to take advantage of opportunities for profitable aggression, something militia cannot do as a complementary force. Defense, however, is completely domestic, as such militia does work as a complementary force (take for example the revolutionary war). Following this militias continued to play a crucial role in defense. This became less and less the case over time, not because the military became aliented, but because the military began growing larger and larger, and eventually militia forces were seen as unnecessary on both levels. What's the point of using militia if you have a paid military large enough to take over countries? I don't see this as a problem if it is on all levels equal to another job, is designed for defense against external threats and it's power is constitutionally limited under the people.


The response thus far has been the attempt to create a "cultural bias" in favor of civilian control of the military. But that's a far more fragile cultural artifact than most people believe...because it tries to pretend that material force is "not" as powerful as a cultural bias.

Are you basing this off Go Army commercials? I have several friends in the military who would argue that this is not attempted in the least. Somewhere along the line the US military lost this quality, probably when it started mobilizing the national guard against it's own people. The government as an administrative body would be focused equally if not more so on the building of workers militia. Making the means necessary for such militia to cooperate and work seamlessly. The means for the military to do this are already in place in most advanced capitalist countries, and if anything much of those resources would be at the time of revolution turned over to the people first and foremost.


It's true that the working class is the one class with material force of its own -- it can simply refuse to work and the professional military is helpless, no matter what it does.

But the "indiscipline" of the masses makes that a difficult response to organize...it's happened, but very rarely.

Why do you assume discipline is something that is necessary? The people have never had the means to organize it on a wide scale until it was already on the brink of being too late. This would not exist in socialist society as it's primary focus would be on workers organization. Once again, the post-revolutionary vanguard should in all cases be converted to an administrative government, which grows as a body of workers in itself to design this means of organization. This becomes the job of the government, as opposed to telling people what they can and cannot do (that is a completely legislative aspect which remains left to the people, both locally and federally).


I don't think there's any reason to believe that a professional military would act any different in a post-capitalist society than it has historically. The same factors would be operating; the same differences in outlook would exist; etc. Perhaps the more highly-developed and conscious working class of that era would "easily" call and implement a general strike against any military presumptions...and the army would have to "back down".

I don't see how the same factors are operating, the political power through controlling the means of production and legislative forces remains directly in the peoples hands. The current outlook is one that the military serves our government, this is the outlook of all three bodies, the military itself, the government, and the current population of the US who sees the government as their mediator to the military i.e. the government is supposed to represent us therefore in representing us we have an indirect control over the military. If the outlook of the people is otherwise, and the outlook of the government is otherwise, and the initial outlook of the military is otherwise... where does this traditional outlook spawn from?


But why chance it? Why create a "special group" within post-capitalist society that will preserve and even increase precisely the kind of crap that you're trying to get rid of?

Well certainly it is left in the hands of the people in the end. Being that control the legislative forces at any time they could pass law to disban such a force.


It's not that you're even likely to "gain" any real additional "protection" from a foreign aggressor...look at the miserable response of the Iraqi army compared to the real and sustained resistance of Iraqi civilians.

This is a poor example, as are most examples of such. For starters, they do not have anything in terms of resources compared to the US military. It is further questionable of whether the military of Iraq in general terms even supported Saddam to the extent that they wanted to promote protection of Iraq in it's current state. If I'm not mistaken much of the military forces gave little opposition to his overthrow and concentrated that opposition post-overthrow with the civilian efforts.

This would not be the case in most advanced capitalist societies where technology increases our chances of spotting military threats before they are even "on shore."

Another point that should be made is that several cities in iraq are in rubble because of this. Civilian opposition is strong and great and all, but in the end it requires the enemy to enter into civilian's living space. It requires them to enter their cities with their infantry and their tank bregade, etc..etc. It requires giving them the opportunity to destroy a nation in order that you can oppose them and save it. So where was the civilian opposition when the tanks were just rolling in? Certainly we can assume civilians wanted Saddam deposed -- maybe then the logical thing to have done would have been to mount an internal civilian attack against Saddam and depose him as soon as possible and then mount a civilian opposition to American military forces before they even got a chance to roll into Baghdad.

Yes the Iraqi's are opposed to the US government, but they were also opposed to their own government. Had they not been it would have been interesting to see the response. Would it have even existed with that clown on TV continually saying that the US was lying and that there were no signs of opposition yet? I don't know... are these people really revolutionary? Are they an example of revolutionary people? I don't think so. If anything they seem far more reactionary to me.


Wouldn't it be the same for us? The masses will fight indefinitely for what they think is worth fighting for; professional soldiers will fight for a little while and then, if things go poorly, surrender or run away.

On sign of threat the military's initial response would be to organize workers militia and in essence "hold em off" until the militia was mobilized (no matter how small the threat seems). Or would you rather the militia only mobilize as the tanks rolled into their towns?


Thus I assert: forget the centralized "full-time" army. You have nothing to gain and quite a bit to lose.

When did I say it was centralized? The only thing I have really said until this post that the military would make a job out of defense being pre-deployed and in positions to defend (primarily shoreline bases). In essence the military is there to "man the radar." I also made note, if I recall correctly, that the military could excersize training of militia. This would certainly make sense as an aspect of their job, and would only help to dealienate them from the people.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by NovelGentry
When did I say it was centralized?

You said it here, on December 11th...


A centralized military should be a constantly ready force, deployed widely to ensure security, and should be complemented by the militias.

Obviously, a de-centralized professional military would be much less of a threat to the revolution. But note that professional police are not centralized...and yet they also develop, over time, the same kind of fascist mind-set.


So I suppose then that we're getting rid of all other jobs that require such discipline?

Well, it's hard for me to think what else involves the full-time preoccupation with the use of deadly force "on command".


Aside from this, the alienation of the military would seem to have little do with the discipline it commands, and a hell of a lot more to do with the position [the] traditional military is in. The traditional military, like the police, is an organization who is given power above the people, they are done so because it is argued that sometimes the people would need to be secured from themselves. I don't see how this even comes in to play when in the end it is the people who are commanding them.

It's argued under bourgeois "democracy" that "the people" command the military "in the end". That's not much help when they are actively "securing us from ourselves".

My point is that a "formal arrangement" or even a "cultural bias" is not some kind of "insurmountable obstacle" to the re-emergence of military ambition among those who've developed that mind-set.

Before Pinochet, the Chileans used to boast that they "were not like" the rest of Latin America -- their military was "really committed" to staying out of politics and had a "long tradition" of "serving the nation".

Even General Douglas MacArthur in the U.S. "toyed" with the idea of staging a military coup against newly-elected President Roosevelt.


Your job [as a full-time soldier] is to serve these people, PERIOD. You ARE these people.

No, you're not "these people" -- you are in a special "category" and you're always in that position because you're a full-time soldier. It's a different kind of life.

Not to mention the enormous ambiguity in the phrase "serve the people" -- it can pretty nearly mean anything you want.


This should be indoctrinated in such military forces from the day they come into existence.

It's done now and has been done for as long as professional militaries have existed. Indoctrination works "much" of the time and even "most of the time"...but not all of the time.

And there's the scorpion in your shoe.


The military works complement the militia, and thus they are in no position and would never have the resources to "save the nation" from any significant threat.

The "threat" does not have to be a real one. It's only required that significant elements of the professional military perceive a "threat" to "national security".

Neither Roosevelt, Allende, nor Chavez were/are any threat to capitalist society whatsoever.

And of course they have "the resources" -- they have weaponry, full-time training, and the habit of obedience to their officers. Even if the militias are equally well-armed, they're still not going to be able to muster much initial resistance to a carefully-planned military coup. (Note that one of the immediate objectives of such a coup would be to seize as many of the militia arms-depots as they could.)


I don't see this as a problem if it is on all levels equal to another job, is designed for defense against external threats and its power is constitutionally limited under the people.

As far as I know, none of the professional armies in Latin America have been "designed" for aggression against other Latin American powers...at least not since the early years of the 20th century. Nor have "constitutional limitations" served to inhibit their domestic ambitions.

A "constitutional limitation" is a "paper tiger"...it "looks powerful" but can be shredded easily by a determined minority.


I have several friends in the military who would argue that this is not attempted in the least.

I think the idea of "military subordination to civilian authority" in the U.S. is emphasized at the higher levels of the military...and not at the lower levels who may indeed be used against the civilian population.

The civilian president "is" the "commander-in-chief" and "must be obeyed unconditionally".


If the outlook of the people is otherwise, and the outlook of the government is otherwise, and the initial outlook of the military is otherwise... where does this traditional outlook spawn from?

From daily life in the military. You are taught to obey without question. You are taught that your own desires and even survival mean nothing. And, as noted, you will develop a disdain and ultimately a contempt for civilians.

It's simply idealist to think this won't happen.

That doesn't mean that a military coup is inevitable...professional military officers could choose to ally with civilian reactionaries (as in China).

But the results will be bad!


Well certainly it is left in the hands of the people in the end. Being that [they] control the legislative forces, at any time they could pass law to disband such a force.

Ah...but would the professional military disband just because they were "told to"?


Another point that should be made is that several cities in Iraq are in rubble because of this. Civilian opposition is strong and great and all, but in the end it requires the enemy to enter into civilian's living space.

Very true; if a post-capitalist country defended only by workers' militias is invaded by a major imperialist country, the destruction will be severe. Driving the invader out will probably involve enormous civilian casualties.

Would the existence of a professional army mitigate that destruction or reduce the number of civilian casualties? Frankly I doubt it...unless it were huge and equipped with high-tech weaponry that matched the invader's.

The USSR had a huge and well-equipped army and so did the Nazis -- and yet both countries were reduced to rubble and suffered enormous civilian casualties.


I don't know... are these people (Iraqis) really revolutionary? Are they an example of revolutionary people? I don't think so. If anything they seem far more reactionary to me.

Their nominal ideology is indeed reactionary (for the most part). But their demonstrated ability to resist the hegemony of U.S. imperialism makes them objectively revolutionary at the present time.

No one else is even playing in their league!


I also made note, if I recall correctly, that the military could exercise training of militia.

And return to their barracks making jokes about the "fuckups" and "clowns" in the militia.

:redstar2000:

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

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I just don't see workers militias as having a fast enough response to certain threats . . .

My question to you comrade - who was it that mobilized immediately to crush the fascist uprising in Spain? And what constituted the bulk of the fascist forces? Indeed, the popular militias responded the most quickly and effectively to the threat posed by reactionary forces.

Also, my thoughts reguarding centralized and heirarchical armies/police forces/etc.:

It seems to me as though these organizations, reguardless of how "alienated" the soldiers are from daily life and civilian society, etc. are, in their nature, built along authoritarian lines. If an institution, by its nature, is built in an authoritarian manner, I believe history shows it will attempt to excert its authority in spheres not only internal, but external. Particularly, given the relationship of armies to other social institutions, it seems only natural and sensible that an army organized in an authoritarian manner must behave in an authoritarian manner in persuing its goals, and, similarly, a democraticly controlled force will do just the opposite (And thus, serve to strengthen other progressive institutions). The end inevitably grows out of the means, regardless of intention.

[NovelGentry]

Obviously, a de-centralized professional military would be much less of a threat to the revolution. But note that professional police are not centralized...and yet they also develop, over time, the same kind of fascist mind-set.

I do apologize. I did not mean centralized in the sense of it's internal power, more that the military itself was a centralized group. That is, a consolidated force of people taken from the general population, rather than being decentralized as in, spread across the entire land and they ARE the population.

This is obviously a touchy word to use and I could have chosen better, but what I was trying to make a point of is that the group moves as a more unified body rather than workers militia, despite having the ability to organize, may still focus on different goals. This is precisely why I feel they would complement. The Military should be consistenly focused on defense, it should aware and ready and poised with arms to attack whatever threat any other country would throw at us. Thus they are unified on a single purpose defense, consolidated defense. The milita on the other hand once mobilized would probably have a style a lot similar to massive guerrilla warfare (assuming ground forces were a threat). Much like in Iraq when these troops fortify in one area they are consistently attacked where they are weak, while the military aswell as other militia focuses on the strong area.


But note that professional police are not centralized...and yet they also develop, over time, the same kind of fascist mind-set.

But once again, police are given authority over people to ensure security. Domestic issues are not a position for this military -- there's no reason why people can't deal with that in a model of communal policing. People are not stripped of their right for secuirty unless they decide to be.... how can I ensure that this is the case? The people are the legislative force. If they want to give Military forces more power it will be on their own terms, not the government, and definitely NOT the militaries alone. The problem that causes alienation is when the police/military forces stand above society. That is they have authoritarian positions for the "sake of security." I am not promoting such a group, and I would agree such a group would lead to these problems. This force, however, is never given that authority -- there's no need for it to be, it is strictly focused on the external threats.


Well, it's hard for me to think what else involves the full-time preoccupation with the use of deadly force "on command".

While it may not be deadly force, there are certainly positions where you have to do what you are told "or else." In fact, most jobs require a decent amount of discipline if you don't want to get fired. Others require a good amount of discipline if you don't want to get killed... construction sites come to mind.


It's argued under bourgeois "democracy" that "the people" command the military "in the end". That's not much help when they are actively "securing us from ourselves".

This is something that they have been given the authority to do, as have the police. It is what gives us that false illusion of security and it is why we have reactionaries who come on here and say "How would communal policing strategies ever stop someone from killing me?" without thinking that Police forces will never stop someone from killing you (or at least their not likely to) what is more likely is that they'll possibly try to find out who did it. They tend not to get TOO worried until more than one person is killed, cause then they got a possible serial killer on their hands.


My point is that a "formal arrangement" or even a "cultural bias" is not some kind of "insurmountable obstacle" to the re-emergence of military ambition among those who've developed that mind-set.

No, but their work is as the peoples servants. More to the point, they work directly with the people on multiple levels, once again, including working directly with the militia for training and so that different strategies can be laid out. Once again, the only difference between the military and the workers militia should be that the defense is their full time job. While I do believe in some hierarchy, there would never be a point of convergence where all commands arise... I take that back, there would, but it would be the people.


Even General Douglas MacArthur in the U.S. "toyed" with the idea of staging a military coup against newly-elected President Roosevelt.

Oh yes, and who exactly is this coup being led against? What power are they seizing? Legislative control? It's the peoples. Means of production? also the peoples. Or are they going to attack the government so that they can do all the administrative and logistical work for the country? That's it!!! they just want to be calculating the Average Social Hour of Labor. The point is simple, political power is not focused in the hands of the government, let alone a single man like a president or a prime minister..etc..etc. So in order to take it they would have to take it from the people. THEN you have a comparible situation to Iraq. Where the military already IS on land, and attack will occur before the people mobilize against it, but surely they will, they're revolutionary are they not?


No, you're not "these people" -- you are in a special "category" and you're always in that position because you're a full-time soldier. It's a different kind of life.

In what way? What rights does my theoretical military have that the people do not? They have no right to detain people, no right to subdue them, no right to control them. What separates them from the people other than their job? which is defense of the nation.


Not to mention the enormous ambiguity in the phrase "serve the people" -- it can pretty nearly mean anything you want.

Ok, then let me clarify that phrase for you. Say there is some rather large natural disaster. Why divert any doctors, engineers, etc... to this location and deprive other places of people they may need. The military would have many of these kinds of people in it -- they would not be just "trained to kill" as you like to believe, nor is the current US military. My friend Yoshi is a doctor on a airforce base and in fact he's never even handled a weapon past basic training. During peace time this theoretical military would represent a resource who could deploy their medics and engineers to such an area (and no, they would not go in carrying guns and telling people what to do, once again, they are not in a position to. But as "servants of the people" the people would be allow to deploy the needed work forces from the military to any location which truly needs it. So you might ask "well why don't these people just be normal workers in militia then? and then we'd have extra workers to deply to begin with." Because then you never overcome the slow mobilization. These people are ready to go when these things happen, there is no slow influx of doctors as they hear about the problem and make their way over individually. Such individuals, while helpful in the same overall sense have other things to settle before they just leave. Doctors cannot just leave without telling their hospitals that they won't be in tomorrow... nor should they. If we are going to be an organized body communication is necessary, but unlike individuals who answer this call of duty, the military is designed for it.

On one last note, it cannot mean anything I want. The people would decide these things.


It's done now and has been done for as long as professional militaries have existed. Indoctrination works "much" of the time and even "most of the time"...but not all of the time.

I'm not sure it is. As I said, I know several people in the military who all tell a different story. It is never set out as their obligation to serve the people in any manner. They are to FOLLOW COMMANDS, if those commands are indeed to help the people they follow them, if they are destroy the people, they follow them. We're not sticking a bunch of reactionary people into a group that controls all the weapons and resources and telling them "follow this guys orders or else!!!!" We're taking normal people, but revolutionary people, and telling them their position in society. The chain of command would follow a distinctly different model than traditionaly military.


The "threat" does not have to be a real one. It's only required that significant elements of the professional military perceive a "threat" to "national security".

I agree, but once again, non-domestic. Domestic threats are easily handled by local workers militia -- in fact, they respond more quickly on that level because they see it as it's happening. How exactly would the local militia respond to an air raid might I ask? How bout if a bunch of naval ships were coming in and were just about visible off the coast (if at all). Or does John Doe who works down at the hardware store run over the militia resource center and check the radar every now and then? Who's duty is this? Is the entire militia trained how to properly read the radar? Do they take turns reading it? or is it the responsibility of a single man who's job does not always require him to be there (that is, someone other than a doctor or EMT). Maybe I'm the one that's confused here, I don't picture worker's militia being aware of such threats until the bomb is dropped or until the missile is fired from 10 miles off the shore-line. So then they all run home, grab their guns, etc..etc.. and you're good? Maybe they take turns, one day a certain group handles this stuff, another day another group, and then they return to their normal job the next day. This wouldn't be so bad, but once again, it would certainly require a lot of training. I can train people... I know how to read the radar... I swear.

I think worker militia made sense for awhile, technology has outgrown potency of it's response for certain situations. Like I said, locally, in town, in city, or however this society gets organized it still does make sense, for both domsetic and foreign issues.


Neither Roosevelt, Allende, nor Chavez were/are any threat to capitalist society whatsoever.

Roosevelt is a moot example, the coup against Chavez lasted all of 2 days (or there abouts) before the people marched on the presidential pallace, and in the end it was this same military who put him back in power. Allende is your best example, and still a poor one since you're still thinking along the lines of traditional military hierarchy and power.


Even if the militias are equally well-armed, they're still not going to be able to muster much initial resistance to a carefully-planned military coup. (Note that one of the immediate objectives of such a coup would be to seize as many of the militia arms-depots as they could.)

Not equally well armed, BETTER armed, with a significantly MORE amount of people. As I said, preexisting military resources should be dumped first and foremost into the militia. It amazes me that you think revolution is possible WITHOUT militia depots yet you give revoltuionary people in a post revolution a snowballs chance in hell against a significantly smaller and underarmed military force.


As far as I know, none of the professional armies in Latin America have been "designed" for aggression against other Latin American powers...at least not since the early years of the 20th century. Nor have "constitutional limitations" served to inhibit their domestic ambitions.

A "constitutional limitation" is a "paper tiger"...it "looks powerful" but can be shredded easily by a determined minority.

You have a very strange view of what you think revolutionary and conscious people will allow to happen to them.


I think the idea of "military subordination to civilian authority" in the U.S. is emphasized at the higher levels of the military...and not at the lower levels who may indeed be used against the civilian population.

The civilian president "is" the "commander-in-chief" and "must be obeyed unconditionally".

First off, who would use these forces against the civilian population. The government does not have the "commander-in-chief," that is a role left up to the people. While the government would maintain certain executive power, it would not maintain all, particularly not the excecutive power which allow them to in any way subdue the people who mainain all effective political control.

The argument which you keep standing is that the military will function on it's own and disregard both levels. There is nothing which prevents a militia from trying to take control, other than more militia. You give reactionary, and indeed counter-revolutionary characteristics to a military force just for the reason alone that it is a military force. You assume there is some position to "take over" to begin with, and give little standing of what this position does or what it has control over. What exactly is this military taking over? The entire population? The very same population that went up against a military dozens of times larger to institute revolution in the first place? The very same population that did that with literally no resources in comparison to what has been taken back through revolution? You really got me scratching my head here... there's no target that maintains political power other than the people, thse soldiers come FROM the people, and are with any luck and a bit of scruitiny are composed of the most revolutionary people out of all of them... they have no motivation, and no central commander. They work with the people on a regular basis training them with the same tactics and are told from day one these are the people you serve, your job is to protect this nation from all external threats... I'm just not seeing it.


From daily life in the military. You are taught to obey without question.

Indeed and obey the higher authority, and the highest authority is the people themselves.


You are taught that your own desires and even survival mean nothing.

Sound characteristic of a revolutionary person to me. Are we not to put our own desire to live aside for the cause of revolution? Are we not to risk our lives for revolution for the betterment of all man?


And, as noted, you will develop a disdain and ultimately a contempt for civilians.

Why?


That doesn't mean that a military coup is inevitable...professional military officers could choose to ally with civilian reactionaries (as in China).

No, it's not inevitable, and it certainly is possible, but the power you are taking is from the people, not a government body... once again, these same people who were born out of revolution to begin with.


Ah...but would the professional military disband just because they were "told to"?

Yes, it would be a direct order from the highest authority which they have been told to follow at all costs.


Very true; if a post-capitalist country defended only by workers' militias is invaded by a major imperialist country, the destruction will be severe. Driving the invader out will probably involve enormous civilian casualties.

Why wait till you have to drive him out?


Would the existence of a professional army mitigate that destruction or reduce the number of civilian casualties? Frankly I doubt it...unless it were huge and equipped with high-tech weaponry that matched the invader's.

It is not designed to if they have already gained a ground position. It is designed to recognize the threat before they have that ground position and to mobilize the militia to fight long before they're marching through our streets.


The USSR had a huge and well-equipped army and so did the Nazis -- and yet both countries were reduced to rubble and suffered enormous civilian casualties.

If I'm not mistaken the USSR didn't really have "workers militia" -- instead workers were drafted into the official military and became part of that line of command. Furthermore they used extremely traditional tactics which preached forward motion at all costs. It's a completely different style of warfare, technology has changed, and by no means does the organization of my theoretical post-revolutionary state match that of post-revolution USSR.


Their nominal ideology is indeed reactionary (for the most part). But their demonstrated ability to resist the hegemony of U.S. imperialism makes them objectively revolutionary at the present time.

This is something I disagree with. They are fight because they are reactionary, they are not "temporarily" revolutionary. They happen to be fighting yes, but reactionary people will fight. This isn't to say there aren't a number of revolutionary groups or individuals there... I'm sure there are, or else it probably wouldn't be such a pain in the ass for the US military. But consistent opposition is as large a reactionary force as it is a revolutionary one, if not larger.

I'm a firm believer that there's a lot more to being revolutionary than taking part in revolution. Maybe that's just me though... and maybe I should come up with a new term for it. What do you think?


And return to their barracks making jokes about the "fuckups" and "clowns" in the militia.

And those who are better than the rest within normal militia would not? Those who are better at others in jobs within a workplace would not? I've worked with a lot of people and gone through a number of different places of employment... this sort of attitude is not solved just by being amongst "equals." The point of training is to ensure that when they are needed they are not fuckups and clowns, cause if they are we're in a hell of a lot more trouble than this theoretical military could ever put us in.

It'd be interesting to see how many of the professionally trained soldiers in Iraq think that the "insurgents' are fuckups and clowns.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The difference arises when a military force has a structure of command that is alienable from other structures of non-military authority. A local civilian militia does not turn to a higher-level for orders - they are co-ordinated directly and democraticly by existing institutions. When one has an army with its own structures, a dual-power situation arises, and even if the two powers are not initially antagonistitic, if one has a monopoly on the means of violence, we know who'll win out come a conflict.

Oh, you didn't address the Spanish example. Again, who responded more quickly to the military uprising against the republic?

[NovelGentry]

There is a very simple reason I didn't address the Spanish example -- it's decades old. Furthermore there is little conflict with what I propose and the Spanish model. Ex-military men served as advisors but were given no real power, in my model the military as a trained body serves as advisors to train workers militia, but is just the same given no power over them. Command is decentralized, depending on how one wishes to divide the forces "commanders" would have control of little more than 20-30 men and just as much democracy could be applied. And if I'm not mistaken they were often labelled "undisciplined" despite pushing for a single command. What the militia did not want, and what my model actively represents is a system where the workers lose control.

Where the decades old part comes in is very simply in saying that technology has drastically changed since the early to mid 1900s, and more to the point military technology is put in the hands of a vast number of countries, none of which we could claim ultimate security against. There is a huge difference between responding to ground infantry with tank bregades and responding to naval and air attacks, as I mentioned before. If you don't think these are problems then wake up already, it's the 21st century. There are defensive realities that should be met unless you want a country destroyed in the midst of it's response.

This is not a call for preemptive war, this is not a call for an offensive force, and this is not a call for anything the likes of what you people have proposed so far. It is a realization of modern technology and the threat a socialist nation would possibly face. It is a realization that says we should have people who can fly jets, we should have people constantly manning anti-aircraft guns, we should have people who monitor radars, we should have people who's job it is to ensure there's not a fleet of naval ships launching an offensive to any one of our shores.

I hear a lot of anarchists talk about "giving this way a try" -- talking about the failures of a state, yet it becomes very convenient for these same anarchists to forget that these working models they promote so much (Spain and France) are no longer working models. Is it impossible to think that maybe neither extreme is good? Maybe what we need is the right balance, a balance that maintains workers control but devotes a certain aspect of society specifically towards functions the worker should not have to be associated with on a daily basis. Just a thought, but until you give the future some thought, stop confronting me with decade old paradigms that have long disappeared off the map.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by NovelGentry
People are not stripped of their right[s] for security unless they decide to be...

I think this assumption underlies a lot of your thinking about this question...and I think it's wrong.

All that seems to be required is the creation of a "threat" to people's sense of "security" and a fair number of people are quite prepared to give up their "rights"...especially those who never bother to exercise them anyway.

The recent passivity of the American public with regard to the Patriot Act, et.al., is an illustration.

In a post-capitalist society, people would be much more conscious of their rights and much more politically sophisticated (able to see through rhetoric about "threats") than they are now.

But that hardly means that everyone will be "immune" to rhetoric about "threats" or appeals based on fear.

Suppose, for example, that there were heated controversies among civilians over "what is to be done" about some urgent matter -- and, meanwhile, nothing is being done while the alternatives are being debated. An undemocratic initiative by the professional military might be welcomed by many...on the grounds that "something" (at last!) is "being done".

It won't occur to them that the professional military may not stop with this particular initiative...but go on to others.

And the problem is never even framed in terms of "rights vs. security"...it just "happens" because of the "urgency of the situation".


The problem that causes alienation is when the police/military forces stand above society.

But my point is that a professional military/police come to think of themselves in that position regardless of any "serve & protect" ideology. It's "in their job description".

And it's probably in their personality profiles as well.

Think about it: what kind of person is attracted to a "job" where you are always either told what to do or you are telling others what to do? Where violence or the threat of violence is "a way of life"?

Psychologically healthy people don't think like that, in my opinion. They may resort to violence in extremis but it's not a daily part of their existence.

I personally would see militia duty as a painful necessity...but hardly my idea of "fun", much less a way to live my life.

The very fact that only a relatively small proportion of humans in any society choose to be soldiers or cops (or violent criminals) suggests there is some kind of socio-pathology at work.


While it may not be deadly force, there are certainly positions where you have to do what you are told "or else." In fact, most jobs require a decent amount of discipline if you don't want to get fired. Others require a good amount of discipline if you don't want to get killed... construction sites come to mind.

Yes, there are dangerous jobs where care must be exercised...and there must indeed be a certain amount of discipline to accomplish any extended task.

But the habit of unquestioning obedience is, I think, of a different order of magnitude in military/police circumstances. On a construction site, for example, if you were ordered to do something dangerous to yourself or others, you could refuse...and the worst thing that could happen to you is that you would be fired -- unless your union backed you up and walked out.

Bosses may dream of "human robots" that will do what they're told and never talk back...but you know and I know that's not how it works even now. In post-capitalist society, things will likely be even more "undisciplined" in that sense -- people will insist that "orders" make some kind of sense or they simply won't carry them out.

But can you imagine a professional military based on such a premise?


What rights does my theoretical military have that the people do not? They have no right to detain people, no right to subdue them, no right to control them. What separates them from the people other than their job, which is defense of the nation?

It's not a matter of "rights" -- it's a matter of what they may decide to do based on their unique perception of social reality.

You keep repeating that being a soldier/cop is "just a job"...like auto-mechanic or bartender. I don't see how you can say that. And I don't see how saying it makes it so.


Say there is some rather large natural disaster. Why divert any doctors, engineers, etc... to this location and deprive other places of people they may need. The military would have many of these kinds of people in it -- they would not be just "trained to kill" as you like to believe, nor is the current US military.

There is no reason why civilian emergency teams could not be set up to respond to disasters.

And I quite agree that only about one out of every ten members of the military is trained in combat skills...all the rest are "support" personnel. (But note that the U.S. military is "privatizing" a good deal of such support in order to free up more personnel for combat duty.)

What's involved here is not simply being "trained to kill", it's being trained to obey without question.

If your friend is sent to Iraq and ordered to treat American wounded, he will do it. If he's ordered to oversee torture, he will do that too -- or face very severe consequences if he refuses.

It's the same with the police. If ordered to apprehend a serial killer, they'll do it. If ordered to open fire on a civilian "mob", they'll do that too.

It's "all in a day's work".

When you really consider it, being in a military or a police force is a tremendous escape from personal responsibility. It's not "up to you" to decide if some act is "right or wrong"...that's not your responsibility. You have only the duty to obey your orders to the best of your ability.

You know that none of the ordinary soldiers who participated in the massacre at My Lai were ever prosecuted...they were just carrying out their orders.


You give reactionary, and indeed counter-revolutionary characteristics to a military force just for the reason alone that it is a military force.

Yes, I do. Maybe not at first...but, in time, yes, I think it would evolve in that direction.


You assume there is some position to "take over" to begin with, and give little standing of what this position does or what it has control over. What exactly is this military taking over?

It seizes effective control of territory, resources, and population, of course. Or at least it tries to do that. It may make use of existing decision-making organs or it may establish new ones that are effectively under its control. It is certainly not "bound" by the institutions that existed previous to its coup.

The implications of this and other objections that you've raised to my thesis is that, in one way or another, the post-capitalist society would be "too strong" to be overthrown by a reactionary professional army -- in fact, the disparity in strength would be so great that it "would never happen".

Perhaps you are right about this; it wouldn't be the first time that I've been accused of "excessive pessimism".

Nevertheless, I think the avoidance of professional armies and police are a wise and prudent precaution. Deprived of an institutional/social base, reactionary proclivities are much less likely to ever cause any problems.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

When I wrote that the professional military teaches you that "your own desires and even survival mean nothing", you responded...


Sound[s] characteristic of a revolutionary person to me. Are we not to put our own desire to live aside for the cause of revolution? Are we not to risk our lives for revolution for the betterment of all man?

No.

That's the "Aztec Theory" of revolutionary politics; you drape yourself over the altar of history and cut your own heart out as an offering to the revolution.

I think living for the revolution is a far superior approach...not only surviving but realizing one's desires in a revolutionary society makes much more sense to me than martyrdom.

Indeed, I find appeals to "self-sacrifice" to be suspicious in and of themselves. The people who make such appeals usually don't intend to sacrifice themselves -- they intend to sacrifice me...or you.


I'm a firm believer that there's a lot more to being revolutionary than taking part in revolution.

As a general statement, I would not disagree. But when people are actually fighting in a struggle and their victory would actually weaken reaction (U.S. imperialism) objectively, then at this time I'm perfectly willing to applaud their efforts.

My real priority is, of course, the emergence (at least in embryonic form) of a revolutionary movement in the U.S. -- and I think a victory by the Iraqi resistance is one of the "necessary pieces" that we need to "get off the ground" here.

As long as U.S. imperialism is "successful", we're screwed. But our ideas start to "make sense" to people when imperialism is defeated.

:redstar2000:

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

[NovelGentry]

All that seems to be required is the creation of a "threat" to people's sense of "security" and a fair number of people are quite prepared to give up their "rights"...especially those who never bother to exercise them anyway.

You still fail to see that you're talking about a post-revolutionary society here, one where consciousness will be a hell of a lot higher than what you see today. Why would any revolutionary member of society give up their rights for security when they are part of a militia and understand that the revolution was up against some of the toughest odds in the world from day one? As I think I mentioned before, you have a very bleek view of how these supposedly revolutionary people see their positions... if revolutionary thinking gives way to this kind of reactionary thought once the revolution is over then count me out.


The recent passivity of the American public with regard to the Patriot Act, et.al., is an illustration.

The American public is by no means revolutionary.


In a post-capitalist society, people would be much more conscious of their rights and much more politically sophisticated (able to see through rhetoric about "threats") than they are now.

Now it's starting to seep through the cracks.


But that hardly means that everyone will be "immune" to rhetoric about "threats" or appeals based on fear.

And then it's lost again by somehow assuming that revolution would even be possible without a revolutionary majority, ensuring that those who are revolutionary and conscious enough to see beyond the rhetoric would maintain the necessary political power. I assume also that after this society is created we just stop trying to raise consciousness of those who still remain unconscious? I suppose these reactionary folk aren't actually aware that the workers militia far outnumbers the military and has all the same resources? Are they left in the dark or something?


Suppose, for example, that there were heated controversies among civilians over "what is to be done" about some urgent matter -- and, meanwhile, nothing is being done while the alternatives are being debated. An undemocratic initiative by the professional military might be welcomed by many...on the grounds that "something" (at last!) is "being done".

Why would these people not excercise the democracy and ensure something be done to begin with. The Military is not set to debate the issue. They are COMMANDED by the public. Secondly, the issue you bring up does not sound like a military issue -- as if there is actually any time to debate over it there would have been plenty of time to mobilize the workers militia who works on an equal level of the military with the same kind of organization and the same system of democratic terms.


It won't occur to them that the professional military may not stop with this particular initiative...but go on to others.

Nor should it have to occure to them since at no point did they ever vote on giving up their right to control the military. They voted to command the military on what to do, not to give up their rights. And once again, this example sounds very strange to begin with, maybe you can get a bit more specific and I can explain to you what this theoretical societies response would probably look like.


And the problem is never even framed in terms of "rights vs. security"...it just "happens" because of the "urgency of the situation".

Yes, and then the workers lose all control due to the instantaneous fascism which has been created by the military forces simply because they are labelled "military" and they are told it's their job to keep an eye out and use the workers militia as a first response.... yes, I understand what you're saying, it just makes no sense.


But my point is that a professional military/police come to think of themselves in that position regardless of any "serve & protect" ideology. It's "in their job description".

And my point is no they don't. They come to think of themselves in that position when they are given authority over the public. It is authority that alienates them, not their job title or function.


Think about it: what kind of person is attracted to a "job" where you are always either told what to do or you are telling others what to do? Where violence or the threat of violence is "a way of life"?

Why do you consistently think of this as some authoritarian force to be reckoned with? They are under DIRECT command of the people with NO authority over the people. The only person I can see wanting to be in a job like that is one who is truly interested in serving the people.


I personally would see militia duty as a painful necessity...but hardly my idea of "fun", much less a way to live my life.

I think you'd be exempt, we'd have little need for the extra medical attention your broken hip would require :lol:

But on a more serious note. There is no "conscription" to militia service. People join out of their own interest in protecting the revolution - I would hope that after a revolution people would realize the need to protect it, but I could be wrong. Once again, the militia would be established first, giving all previous resources necessary to them. The military would grow then out of those with significant knowledge of how to deal with the tasks on hand of the military. It would be initially built proportional to the strength of the workers militia, probably a size of 1% at the least, and 3% at the most. From then on the administrative would probably propose bills to throttle it accordingly -- whether the people vote properly on it is another question. The people could also propose such bills to throttle the military if they felt necessary.


The very fact that only a relatively small proportion of humans in any society choose to be soldiers or cops (or violent criminals) suggests there is some kind of socio-pathology at work.

Indeed, but such individuals in current society are place in authoritarian positions. Thus whatever drives them to this in current society would not likely drive them to a position in the military which is subservent to the people above all.


But the habit of unquestioning obedience is, I think, of a different order of magnitude in military/police circumstances. On a construction site, for example, if you were ordered to do something dangerous to yourself or others, you could refuse...

Why do you assume this would be any different in the military? My question to you is why would anyone join the military or the militia knowing that their primary goal is to defend the revolution at the possible cost of their life? An order to attack civilians should be rightfully questioned, and I would hope revolutionary people would deny such an order in both aspects of defense (military and militia).


But can you imagine a professional military based on such a premise?

Yes


It's not a matter of "rights" -- it's a matter of what they may decide to do based on their unique perception of social reality.

Where does this unique perception come from if they are never given such authority to begin with? Once again, alienation comes from being placed above society. You still don't see beyond that of a traditional military which is given such authority because it is a tool of the ruling class, not of the workers. If the ruling class are the workers it is their tool.


You keep repeating that being a soldier/cop is "just a job"...like auto-mechanic or bartender. I don't see how you can say that. And I don't see how saying it makes it so.

First off, I never said anything about cops. You brought that up and I dismissed that as a communal policing issue, something the military would have no place in. As far as the military, it is indeed just a job, and a rather simple one at that, watch out for incoming attack. If you see an incoming attack mobilize the militia and defend against that attack until the militia is in subsiquent position to fortify that defense.


There is no reason why civilian emergency teams could not be set up to respond to disasters.

No, there isn't and indeed they should be, just as the militia is set up to respond to the needs of defense, but as civilians they have other jobs and other responsibilities that they must first ensure are setlled. Once again, I don't think it would be good if a number of doctors all the sudden responded to a disaster without first notifying the hospital their currently working at and making sure they're not needed there for any immediate need. There's no reason NOT to have people dedicated to this on other levels too, the same way we have paramedics and EMT in current society, much like firefighters -- notice these bodies have similar discipline yet no authority and they do not suffer from the same alienation... when's the last time you had a paramedic oppressing you on the street like a cop does? How bout a firefighter?

Once again if alienation is caused by this form of discipline there is nothing that stops a militia who has chosen to organize under strict discipline to become alienated. Or are we to ensure every column of the militia is democratic? How do we ensure this? Who ensures it? What authority? The answer is no one ensures it, you base it on the assumption that the majority of people in post-revolutionary society wouldn't stand for it. So why would they stand for it in their military?


What's involved here is not simply being "trained to kill", it's being trained to obey without question.

Once again, characteristic of a traditional and very authoritarian military. I'm asking you to think outside the box on this one. Let me stress it again -- The ONLY thing that separates military forces from those of the worker's militia is their constant watch. They are trained and in turn train the militia. Do you assume all training is authoritarian? Maybe then we will abolish that too and no one will ever learn a new skill.


When you really consider it, being in a military or a police force is a tremendous escape from personal responsibility. It's not "up to you" to decide if some act is "right or wrong"...that's not your responsibility. You have only the duty to obey your orders to the best of your ability.

Agreed, let's just hope the people giving those orders are not suicidal.


Yes, I do. Maybe not at first...but, in time, yes, I think it would evolve in that direction.

Maybe you would just rather me call it something else then? Would that clear this whole thing up? Ok then, it's not a military it's an Initial Defense Unit -- a portion of the workers militia who is designated to watch for incoming naval and air threats and respond to those threats by mobilizing the rest of the workers militia and combating those threats until that militia is mobilized.


Nevertheless, I think the avoidance of professional armies and police are a wise and prudent precaution. Deprived of an institutional/social base, reactionary proclivities are much less likely to ever cause any problems.

They are no more deprived in the situation you are rendering than in the situation I am rendering. What stops a portion of the militia that is indeed reactionary from taking the same steps to seize power? Nothing. This is much like the argument you use against capitalist for non-police/military -- professional police don't stop someone from shooting you, just like a professional military won't STOP another nation from attacking. What it will do is ensure that we know about it and respond to it a lot sooner. This would be the same case with police but we don't have radars that detect bullets - thus they are deployed with the hope they catch crime in action. A seriously moot point if you assume a form of communal policing, as then all people become the watchful eye - so while no one can stop someone from shooting you, they are more likely to see it happen so that the community can respond quicker to the criminal action of the invdividual perpetrating it.

I'd like to make a point here that my ideology also differs severely from anarcho-syndicalist and traditional marxist ideologies in terms of post-revolutionary necessity and revolutionary necessity. Indeed my ideology I believe would create the LEAST reactionary post-revolutionary society -- but that is indeed another topic alltogether. My point of mentioning this is quite simple that my ideology promotes a situation where you indeed require a revolutionary majority, as opposed to a revolutionary minority and a reactionary majority who will fight in revolution for the sake of their own possible gains in post-revolutionary society.


I think living for the revolution is a far superior approach...not only surviving but realizing one's desires in a revolutionary society makes much more sense to me than martyrdom.

Then I presume you don't think bloodshed is a necessary aspect of revolution. If indeed it is a necessary aspect of revolution those who are truly revolutionary should be willing to die for the cause. I am not saying that they should sacrifice their life in the way of no true progress... prceisely why I don't promote the idea that we all just get up off our chairs right now and go attack bourgeois institutions. What I do firmly believe, however, is that the bourgeoisie will not give up without a fight... and as such there will come a time when those who are "revolutionary" (and I'm quoting for a reason) have to decide whether they are willing to lose their life for that and that will indeed decide who the true revolutionaries are. The obvious conscious aspects of being revolutionary would come into play before this aspect ever would, and as such there would already be examples of true revolutionary thought before this point, but this point would indeed become a deciding of those who are truly revolutionary.

It reminds me of a part of Che's Reminiscence of the Cuban Revolution. If I'm not mistaken it was during the assault on Santa Clara where he came across a young man huddled back behind cover with no rifle crying. He asked the young man why he wasn't up there fighting and received the response, "I don't have a rifle." Che told him that he should go up to the front lines and grab a rifle first chance he got from a dead guerrilla or a dead enemy. Later after things had settled, Che came across the young man in a hospital ward. He did not recognize the boy at first, until the boy explained to him that he went to the lines and got a gun like he had told him.

There is a definite consciousness to being revolutionary, in many aspects it is as important if not moreso than just your willingness to fight. But I don't think it's ever proper to assume blood will not be spilled, and in the end it will become a question of whether that consciousness leads you to fight along side those willing to sacrifice their lives, and thus whether you are willing to sacrifice yours.


Indeed, I find appeals to "self-sacrifice" to be suspicious in and of themselves. The people who make such appeals usually don't intend to sacrifice themselves -- they intend to sacrifice me...or you.

I would never expect you or I to follow such a person into revolution. Nor would I expect any revolutionary person to do so. But above all I would be willing to go to that point wherever and whenever it becomes truly necessary, and yes, beyond that, reasonable.


As a general statement, I would not disagree. But when people are actually fighting in a struggle and their victory would actually weaken reaction (U.S. imperialism) objectively, then at this time I'm perfectly willing to applaud their efforts.

As you should, but I think communists and truly revolutionary people must be weary of those who fight for reactionary reasons. If they believe that Imperialism will be defeated and that there will form out of this revolution a new ruling class, they may assume they will become part of it due to their "service." Of course I don't think this is an issue for most of us, we are well aware the goal is to end class antagonisms, not create new ones, and because of that we become wary of ideologies we believe may lead to new class antagonisms and eventually a new ruling class (as you have proven here). More to the point, we should be wary, anyone who tries to their fullest to be revolutionary should.

If I'm not mistaken it may have been you in the past who said, applaud the action not the motivation. (or something similar to that). While I agree with this, don't ever expect me to applaud louder when the motivation is as just as the action.


My real priority is, of course, the emergence (at least in embryonic form) of a revolutionary movement in the U.S.

There's always the RCP.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by NovelGentry
Maybe you would just rather me call it something else then? Would that clear this whole thing up? Ok then, it's not a military, it's an Initial Defense Unit -- a portion of the workers militia who is designated to watch for incoming naval and air threats and respond to those threats by mobilizing the rest of the workers militia and combating those threats until that militia is mobilized.

Yes, that's better...perhaps every militia unit will do two weeks per year as "border patrol".

They'll be "full-timers" for a couple of weeks and then go back to their ordinary jobs.

And there'll be no professional officer corps at all...just people who've had more experience in the militia than younger members.

There'd be nothing you could point to and say "there's the army" and "there are the soldiers". There'd just be militia units in variable states of mobilization, depending on circumstances.

I could live with that.


Then I presume you don't think bloodshed is a necessary aspect of revolution.

Presumption is always risky.

I have no problem with killing as many of the forces of the class enemy as required to achieve victory. I do have a problem with people who are seeking or who think we should all be seeking "revolutionary martyrdom". They take unnecessary risks, engage in reckless "strategy", and may end up doing more harm than good.

Revolution should not be thought of as a "romantic adventure" followed by "glorious martyrdom".

To paraphrase General Patten, I don't want us to "die for the revolution", I want those other bastards to die for capitalist reaction.

:redstar2000:

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

[Zingu]

Originally posted by Comité De Salut [email protected] 10 2004, 01:56 PM
Lenin was a genius. And I don't like Lenin critics any more than I like snot up my nose.
Lenin's brain study

Lenin's brain was removed before his body was embalmed. The Soviet government commissioned the well-known German neuroscientist Oskar Vogt to study Lenin's brain and to locate the precise location of the brain cells that are responsible for genius. The Institute of Brain was created in Moscow for this purpose. Vogt published a paper on the brain in 1929 where he reported that some pyramidal neurons in the third layer of Lenin's cerebral cortex were very large. However the conclusion of its relevance to genius was contested. Vogt's work was considered unsatisfactory by the Soviets. Further research was continued by Soviet team, but the work on Lenin's brain was no longer advertised.

Modern anatomy no longer believes that morphology alone can determine the functioning of the brain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin

[NovelGentry]

Yes, that's better...perhaps every militia unit will do two weeks per year as "border patrol".

They'll be "full-timers" for a couple of weeks and then go back to their ordinary jobs.

And there'll be no professional officer corps at all...just people who've had more experience in the militia than younger members.

There'd be nothing you could point to and say "there's the army" and "there are the soldiers". There'd just be militia units in variable states of mobilization, depending on circumstances.

I could live with that.

This still seems like it would cause a certain abandonment of technology that requires a decent amount of training. Take pilots for example. I wholey believe there should be a static force. I think it's kinda dumb to look at it from a perspective of "just people who've had more experience." The training has to spawn from somewhere. There's no reason why you would commit people who don't fully understand engineering to a position at the head of an engineering team -- why should you do this with defense? This of course isn't to say people cannot become fully trained, they certainly can, but much like a teacher at a university who more than likely has great experience in the field they're teaching, you would not occasionally swap the teacher for soemone who is significantly less educated on the subject at the moment. I would agree that once this education has come to term you could continue on such a path. But there are certain things that would take people years to completely master. If indeed our end aim is "from each according to their ability..." let's not dilute those who have the ability with those who do not just for the sake of being afraid to have the same person too long.

This is my reasoning on other levels for not being an anarchist. This tends to happen in the political field in anarchist theory aswell. That our delegates should be recalled and changed so frequently as to put no one in a position of control. The way I see it, the only way it leads to control is if the people give up that control. I'm not saying there's no method of recalling administrative duties or military ones. This would always be a right of the people, and certainly there should be a shift from time to time so that the duties (not the authority) doesn't go to someone's head. But I'm also not saying we should do this just for the sake of doing it, if someone is indeed good at someting, let them do it so that we are not sacrificing the capabilities of truly excellent individuals in certain fields.


I have no problem with killing as many of the forces of the class enemy as required to achieve victory. I do have a problem with people who are seeking or who think we should all be seeking "revolutionary martyrdom". They take unnecessary risks, engage in reckless "strategy", and may end up doing more harm than good.

Revolution should not be thought of as a "romantic adventure" followed by "glorious martyrdom".

To paraphrase General Patten, I don't want us to "die for the revolution", I want those other bastards to die for capitalist reaction.

I agree completely, but in the end only you can decide what you will consider unnecessary and necessary risks. And in revolutionary terms my ideology creates this sort of environment the best I think. If you are willing to join a party and have your actions deemed by that party or face their consequences that is you placing yourself in possible unnecessary risks. Many of those in the cuban revolution did not completely understand the risk they were putting themselves in when they joined guerrilla forces, and for that reason there were many deserters and undercommitted members. These people never should have been there in the first place, but they took that risk and in doing so they sacrificed their right to have full control over what they did, and in trying to get that right back they could be seen as little more than a disciplinary problem. I have no sympathy for these unfortunate martyrs who took on this risk not thinking in through, and I have complete understanding of why such undiscipline was a threat to the guerrilla forces. There are numerous accounts of botched missions and in the end such discipline cost Che and many other guerrillas their life. Thus you have to look at the mutual responsibility in such a scenario and the reasons for both sides commanders and commandees doing what they did and in the end many dying for the individual responsibilities they put upon themselves.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Novel Gentry
This still seems like it would cause a certain abandonment of technology that requires a decent amount of training. Take pilots for example.

Yes, I think we will end up abandoning "high tech" military technology, for a whole number of reasons.

First, it's hugely expensive in resources...as America's own expenditures demonstrate.

Second, it's of dubious reliability, as America's experience has also shown.

Consider your example: pilots of presumably high-tech combat aircraft. Unless we are willing to devote approximately the same resources to developing and manufacturing such aircraft, our pilots are "dead men"...their inferior planes will be destroyed by the superior aircraft of the imperialists in hours.

On the other hand, it is relatively inexpensive to manufacture a ground-to-air missile that is very reliable, requires only a minimum of training ("point and shoot"), and can be stored in large numbers for an indefinite period of time.

In other words, I'm proposing a "military doctrine" that is very different from the "orthodox" doctrine of capitalist military experts. We will use "simple" weapons in very large numbers to repel an imperialist invasion -- because we are expecting to rely on most of the population for defense if necessary.

Instead of "set-piece" battles between large, disciplined armies, we will rely on hundreds and thousands of "small engagements" by units that act on their own initiative to attack at will, retreat, and attack again. Even kids and old women can pull the pin on a grenade and throw it at a passing military patrol by the imperialists.

Instead of "stomping" the enemy into submission, we will "nibble him to death"...as the Vietnamese did and as the Iraqis are doing now.

Not only does this "doctrine" effectively avoid the dangers of a large permanent military elite but it is known to work.

That makes sense to me.

:redstar2000:

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

[NovelGentry]

First, it's hugely expensive in resources...as America's own expenditures demonstrate.

Second, it's of dubious reliability, as America's experience has also shown.

Consider your example: pilots of presumably high-tech combat aircraft. Unless we are willing to devote approximately the same resources to developing and manufacturing such aircraft, our pilots are "dead men"...their inferior planes will be destroyed by the superior aircraft of the imperialists in hours.

I wasn't talking on the lines of continuing it, moreso not abandonning what we have. Most of the aircraft we've made will be useful for decades to come. While I agree at some point these resources are out of style and will only equate to dead men when put up against new technology, it is tough to say when we may suffer an attack. In short, I don't think there's any reason to dump this technology right off the bat, use it until it expires and we know it will no longer be useful.


Instead of "set-piece" battles between large, disciplined armies, we will rely on hundreds and thousands of "small engagements" by units that act on their own initiative to attack at will, retreat, and attack again. Even kids and old women can pull the pin on a grenade and throw it at a passing military patrol by the imperialists.

Agreed, but once again this goes back to letting them in before we resist. We know that on their path in possibly thousands will die from bombings and offshore shelling. So why not have at the very least a few thousand who are focused on pushing those attacks off to begin with? I'd rather have 1,000 people fighting and dying to make sure they never set foot on land than 1,000 people dying in their homes as we are shelled to shit.

Once the enemy is in a position where that type of large scale guerrilla style combat works, then we can use it.


Instead of "stomping" the enemy into submission, we will "nibble him to death"...as the Vietnamese did and as the Iraqis are doing now.

And as such our cities will be destroyed, our entire infrastructure which made socialism possible to begin with will have to be rebuilt. Our civilians will be killed without question and our society will collapse into little more than people fighting the invasion. What I am proposing is a certain measure to prevent against this as much as possible, so that our militia become mobilized BEFORE they set foot on our land. So that our militia are not out working when the plane flies overhead in the inland, but instead are sitting there with the SAMs and ready. I don't think we should ever be in a position where it will require bombs to be dropped to know that we're being attacked.


Not only does this "doctrine" effectively avoid the dangers of a large permanent military elite but it is known to work.

I guess that all depends on your definition of "work" -- and we continue to disagree on the mindset of this military, which is by no means permanent. In fact, I would see it disappearing once a good deal of the militia was trained and being replaced with a system like what we "agreed" upon before, where certain columns alternate the consistent work of monitoring for threat.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

One time, Lenin walked around in a poor, common area, seeing workers stealing planks from the foundation of state-owned property (buildings). Lenin was quite happy, despite the chaos. Some of his colleague's complained to Lenin, but Lenin himself said that if they did not take the planks, they would freeze to death when the winter would come.