A revolution in the West might soon be impossible

[Karl Marx's Camel]

It's called the "Land Warrior", and soldiers using this technology are already in effect.


They have a thermal sight, digital compass, high power weapon, lazer range finder, and a video camera. The video camera is connected to a miniature computer secured to the soldiers back. They can look around covers without exposing their bodies. They use a viewfinder to point out the enemies.

They can also download information, such as a digital map, in order to see their fellow soldiers, and receive commands from the squad leader.

They can even send the video to commandes outside the combat zone. The commanders can transmit the orders.

They also have Wide Area Mines (Hornet), digital mines, which can explode by hearing or feeling vibration in the ground. The mines also co-operate. so that they can destroy armored targets with maximum damage.

Remote controlled planes equipped with infrared camera, and can track the enemy without detection.

On the ground, they have remote controlled robots , "critters" use sight and sound sensors to track the enemies.

They are also planning high tech gliders.

Another project in progress is "smart camouflage". Computers control fibers in the suit, capable to change appearanse like a cameleon to blend in.


A long term project is a "supersoldier". I glimpsed through a European article today. Things that we are supposed to see in the future. If a soldier break a bone, the suit will compress the leg, so he can better walk. The soldier will be able to look 360 degrees.

There is so much more, much of it we don't even know about. Possibly in the future, they will have complete control over the people. They might even possibly implant ID's inside us. Far as I know, some already have it (children, who are monitored by their parents). If something does not happen in the rare future, we might lose forever.

[violencia.Proletariat]

i have seen shows on this weapon. not to worry though because why would we be fighting the army in the first place? they arent our enemy, they are fellow working class.

[Paradox]

Unless you plan to fight the army with a small guerrilla force, I wouldn't worry. We have to earn the support of the overwhelming majority of people before Communism can be realized. That would include most of the soldiers as nate pointed out, the majority of them are from working class backgrounds. Anti-Communist propaganda is a much bigger problem in my opinion. If we can beat that, all those advanced weapons aren't going to help them fight off the will of the masses. Violence? Sure. That's pretty much a guarantee. But if we go about it right, I'm sure we will win.

Besides, look at Iraq. The US as all that superior firepower and technology, and they're still struggling against the Iraqi resistance.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 04:46 PM
Unless you plan to fight the army with a small guerrilla force, I wouldn't worry. We have to earn the support of the overwhelming majority of people before Communism can be realized. That would include most of the soldiers as nate pointed out, the majority of them are from working class backgrounds. Anti-Communist propaganda is a much bigger problem in my opinion. If we can beat that, all those advanced weapons aren't going to help them fight off the will of the masses. Violence? Sure. That's pretty much a guarantee. But if we go about it right, I'm sure we will win.

Besides, look at Iraq. The US as all that superior firepower and technology, and they're still struggling against the Iraqi resistance.
I believe that Paradox is right and wrong. Yes, I agree that Anti-Communistic propaganda and indoctrinization is our first enemy (second being the Bourgeoisie, because with the Masses indoctrinized against Communism we're fucked in the first place), but I disagree that Soldiers would eventually realize our goals, and how much we had in common. Boot Camp is a re-programming camp. They brainwash you. They break you down, recompile you, and lock you into it. Hell, look at Iraq. One of the most unjust and opposed wars since Vietnam and all these working class Soldiers are going to their deaths. They aren't resisting. Why? Because they've been brainwashed.

[encephalon]

technology has this funny habit of decentralizing itself. That is, they won't be the only ones with such technology. As has been seen in the past few decades, small groups have suddenly made great leaps in comparison to standing armies, as well as individuals. A resourceful small group of people can devastate a large, powerful enemy today, and I expect that trend to continue. My concern would be the exact opposite, really; once capitalism is overthrown, there will be small terrorist groups able to wield weapons of immense power against the public at large.

[Paradox]

but I disagree that Soldiers would eventually realize our goals, and how much we had in common. Boot Camp is a re-programming camp. They brainwash you. They break you down, recompile you, and lock you into it. Hell, look at Iraq. One of the most unjust and opposed wars since Vietnam and all these working class Soldiers are going to their deaths. They aren't resisting. Why? Because they've been brainwashed.

Still, I think you're a bit pessimistic in regards to this. Yes, they aren't resisting, but it is a military. And they joined voluntarily. Though probably because they felt it was their only option, as there aren't many jobs, and they need money for school, etc.,etc.. Whether or not they are brainwashed, going to war is their job. And those who go and see that the war was unjust and unnecessary come back angry that they were sent to fight for nothing other than imperialism ("a war for oil"). And there are veterans' groups opposing the war and speaking out, so obviously this "brainwashing" isn't totally effective and doesn't last or affect all veterans. Of course, there are veterans who are for the war as well. Anyways, the point is that there will be soldiers who come back and join our ranks. Not all of them, but still probably quite a few.

[Clarksist]

technology has this funny habit of decentralizing itself. That is, they won't be the only ones with such technology. As has been seen in the past few decades, small groups have suddenly made great leaps in comparison to standing armies, as well as individuals. A resourceful small group of people can devastate a large, powerful enemy today, and I expect that trend to continue. My concern would be the exact opposite, really; once capitalism is overthrown, there will be small terrorist groups able to wield weapons of immense power against the public at large.


Exactly. Plus, our revolution will be completely urban warfare, and the casualties of civilians will be a prime concern of the military. Seeing the citizens dying around them will hurt the military's morale.

[Kleng]

Will there even be an army in a communist society?

If the people took control I really think we would stop fighting wars all over the world to keep it under control (wich mailny benefit the ritch today) and spend huge amonts of resourses on the military. This would mean professional soldiers would lose not only their job, but their way of living and everything they believe in. Becourse of this, I'm sure soldiers would not join us, but do anything they can to stop the revolution. They will be our enemy.

[Donnie]

I think we need to remember that it is our class that runs society and when the revolution comes the working class will drop what there doing to join the revolution and when the working class stop what there doing the whole of society stops and cannot function. Sure, the middle class and upper class say that we have machines now to keep society going without our class but remember we have to maintain the machines.

So, many of our working class comrades will have to run and maintain these machines that create all these army weapons. But if they stop and only produce for the revolution things can become a little difficult for the army.

Also the army is dominated with working class people, do you think a soldier will want to open fire on the population when they know their family could be in the revolution?

Also the revolution isn't all about destruction it’s about the creation of a new society. When the revolution comes it will be important to join you're political organisation's and sabotage the workplace collectively.

If anything revolution is more likely to occur in the west because of capitalism being such an unstable system.
Capitalist economies suffer periodic booms and slumps. These occur when too many goods are produced than the market can absorb (overproduction). Therefore logically the system could experience deeper and deeper crises because:

1) Its a dog eat dog world. The big capitalist fish will destroy the smaller ones and eventually the world economy would be dominated by huge corporations.

2) This process of monopolization would lead to increasing social polarisation. The number of property owners (the ruling class) would shrink while all other classes (small businessmen, professionals, farmers, shop-keepers) would be forced into the working class.

3) Gradually the rate of profit earned by capitalists would fall for two reasons:

* In order to produce goods faster and cheaper than their competitors capitalists need to reinvest more and more of their profits into training skilled workers and buying complex machines. This would eat into their profits.

*As fewer companies compete for a limited market, profits will be squeezed as prices are driven down

4) The living standards of the working class could therefore be expected to remain low, as labour costs are the main expense of business.

[encephalon]

Will there even be an army in a communist society?

There you go opening pandora's box :P

Everyone seems to disagree on this point, except for the fact that no state would exist in a communist society and therefore no standing army. Under socialism, however, I suspect there would have to be a standing force of voluntary soldiers that specialize in stopping counter-revolution. Although I'd love it if everyone would just be soldiers for revolution without needing people doing it full time, I think it's an unrealistic expectationright after a revolution: there will be mass confusion and turmoil, and counter-revolutionary terrorist groups will try to regain power. I can see no other viable way to counter this than a specialized, organized fighting force. I'd love to be wrong about that, though.

[Donnie]

I think it would be a bad idea to join an army in the revolution because it would loose it's revolutionary fever, with all those orders everyone including me would get annoyed. No, instead we should join militia's in which we are all equal with no hierarchical leadership when orders are given they should be given comrade to comrade not general to "grunt".

Local militia’s could meet up and discuss stuff on regional issue’s it’s important that we get a system of federalism up straight away.

[Kleng]

I don't think small militias with no officers would be verry effective...

[sbrevcom]

Small militias, I think, could definitely work. Case in point, the Cuban Revolution.

However, I agree that there would need to be some sort of "official" in the militia/guerrilla group. After all, you'd need someone to make decisions if an argument arose, as Che, Fidel, and Raul did.

I also definitely agree that said "official" shouldn't be making the calls from the safety of his home. If one was to be an official, they'd have to be in combat with the guerrillas.

[redstar2000]

All that high-tech crap is useless against a half-million or more very angry people in the streets...in every city!

Sure they could massacre once or even twice...and then all hell breaks loose!

Their high-tech equipment will be good only for receiving a final text message...

All your bases belong to us! :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Vanguard1917]

All that high-tech crap is useless against a half-million or more very angry people in the streets...in every city!

...All your bases belong to us!

Now, that's the spirit!

[enigma2517]

A general strike would be very effective at dismantling the old system.

The army can't shoot people striking (god I hope not)

Either way, soldiers are people too, a bit programmed, yes, thats why some of them actual volunteer for Iraq. But shooting Muslims seems a lot easier than opening fire on the guy who lives down the street.

The only way it could get really ugly is if we tried to conduct a violent coup (pointless anyway, seizing political power has no value to us, we must concentrate on bringing the economic assets under our control) thus giving the Army enough reason to open fire.

But a revolt is a lot different than I coup and I'd say that it'd be much harder to put down.

[anomaly]

If there is to be revolution in the West, it will very likely occur in the manner redstar has described, so we needn't worry about this technology the army has.

Guerrilla-style revolutions will probably occur exclusively in the global south, where armies are nowhere near as advanced.

This doesn't hurt the revolutionary cause at all.

[Paradox]

Again, I'd like to say that anti-Communist propaganda is the real obstacle, not advanced weaponry. I was just watching CSPAN, and they were showing a "conservative students' conference." The speaker was a man named Floyd Brown, who is the executive director of some group "Young America's Foundation." He was criticizing Michael Moore, calling him a liar and all that usual crap, even calling him a "damn SOB" because he has stopped founding some scholarship for his old high school. Anyways, it was interesting because the way he made some of his statements, it actually gave away how fake he is himself and what he and the conservatives want people to believe. He said that Moore is important because of "who he targets." He said that Moore's intended audience isn't the "so-called workers," but the "future leaders of America." So from that, you could gather that the workers don't control shit, as they aren't "leaders." He also made the usual "the Left is intellectually bankrupt" arguement, saying they "don't want a debate" and that's why they have to throw pies at Ann Coulter. :rolleyes: Obviously, it was quite upsetting... and quite a load of bullshit. He played the patriotism card, talking about Europe's "love for Michael Moore" and said "it's probably the French. Right? It's always the French." And as might be expected, and I mean no offensive by this, his audience of conservative students was almost entirely White. I did see a couple of Condi and Colin Powel wannabes in there though. Anyways, this is what is the real obstacle; the lies about the Left and the constant propaganda against it. Weapons won't mean shit when you're facing up against wave after wave of revolutionary workers. :D

[Karl Marx's Camel]

i have seen shows on this weapon. not to worry though because why would we be fighting the army in the first place? they arent our enemy, they are fellow working class.

I'm sorry to say this, but that is just naive.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Also the army is dominated with working class people,

For now, that is. Things change. One day the sons (and/or daughters) of the capitalist class might be the ones who constitute much the army (with the "excuse" that upper class people want to defend the country, too). Or they might give working class soldiers in the army some property, in order to keep them loyal. If I am not mistaken, the Samurai's in Japan were given pretty large plots, and even a servant. Or was that the knights in Rome..? Anyways, you get my point.

[Camarada]

nobody said the revolution would be easy.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 06:57 PM
I don't think small militias with no officers would be verry effective...
they would have leaders, the soldiers vote who they want to lead them in each militia. keep in mind, that this person has no power over the soldiers because he can be recalled, the soldiers would trust him because they chose him. and the leader would recieve no special treatment as in armies today.

[Bannockburn]

I brought up this concern in another post. It fell on deaf ears. I think the idea that the military is part of the working class is this romantic perspective that soldiers will take up arms against the government for the proletarian. I doubt it. They are a branch of the government and is only a tool for the government. Soldiers are trained, disciplined and indoctrinated to follow orders, regardless of class, race, or citizenry.

The revolution must take into account the modern military, and how they will be overcome.

However, I doubt technology will be the problem. Car bombs and suicide bombers seem to be doing well against the American military. Nevertheless, the revolution will need a mechanism to start the laymen to action. I assume it will be environmental rather than class this time.

[Donnie]

I don't think small militias with no officers would be verry effective.
I think it would be extremely effective because how is a reactionary force supposed to attack the revolution if everybody over the country is split up into autonomous militias?

We can still have connections with other militias due to the technological advances that capitalism has done.” Destroy the master’s house with the master’s tools".

Remember the strength of the social revolution is organic, not mechanistic: not in mechanical, military measures lies its strength, but its industry, in its ability to reconstruct life, to establish liberty, justice and equality. Let the people feel that it is indeed their own cause which is at stake.

The military defense of the revolution may demand supreme co-ordination of activities and discipline. But these must proceed from the devotion of the workers and peasants, and must be based on their voluntary co-operation through their own local, regional and federal organisations.

If the workers and peasants feel they are neglected and that it's really not their cause they will turn over to the reactionary forces. If we establish equality and liberty in the revolution straight away the workers and the peasants will defend their revolution to the dieing death. But if we have all this hierarchy and saluting the social revolution will all be in vein.

[Red Heretic]

You seem to forget comrades, it is us who wield the most powerful weapon on earth.... THE PEOPLE!

[slim]

Distinguishing between the working class and the enemy in a revolution would be a hard thing to do. A lot of military men are working class. They need to work to survive and should be seen as the working class. They are like the rest of us, slaves of the state.

[anomaly]

But, slim, it is the military's job to protect the very thing we wish to destroy-the state. If they continue to fight for the state, it is neccesary that we fight back. Such action makes their class irrelevant.

[slim]

When it happens, they will not fight us.

[DaCuBaN]

Their high-tech equipment will be good only for receiving a final text message...

All your bases belong to us!

You make a good point here... who's to say revolution necessitates physical confrontation at all? All it would take is one geek to make a bit of a "boo-boo" whilst another is having a sniff around his servers - the next thing anyone knows, All military communications are disabled and these "super soldiers" suddenly feel very, very alone...

Embrace the digital revolution, for it may yet bring us salvation.

:redstar2000:

[Decolonize The Left]

it is the military's job to protect the very thing we wish to destroy-the state.

Wrong. It is the military's job to protect the people of the state. And when you think about it, these soldiers are the sons and daughters of the people fighting for the revolution (hopefully). How can you attack and suppress your own parents, family, and friends?

But I do agree that some confrontation will be necessary, and it will come against the military, some factions of it at least, and we will have to fight. But in the larger picture I don't see the military fighting on the state's side.

As for the high-tech idea, it's great. If we could shut down their communications, which we certainly will have the people to do, they will crumble much quicker. I imagine many will join our cause once they are removed from the direct top-down system of the military today.

-- August

[violencia.Proletariat]

the military protecting the people :lol: the military's job for the past century has been to protect and gain economic interests. also remember, if we are doing this right the military should have barley any recruitment, the numbers are slipping now :D . therfore this military that we may or may not have to fight is not going to be very large.

[slim]

The army would never attack their own people in Britain. They may attack northern Irish catholics but thats another argument.

The U.S. army is in my view capable of attacking its own people if instructed by the president in a propaganda type speech. The president could say the revolutionaries are fighting to destroy what they have fought to build. To destroy peace and american justice, to destroy freedom.

The usual cappie rubbish.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 03:23 PM
The army would never attack their own people in Britain. They may attack northern Irish catholics but thats another argument.

The U.S. army is in my view capable of attacking its own people if instructed by the president in a propaganda type speech. The president could say the revolutionaries are fighting to destroy what they have fought to build. To destroy peace and american justice, to destroy freedom.

The usual cappie rubbish.
of course they will! the national guard has attacked many people throughout the 1900's. especially durings strikes, and most recently(that i can think of) in the seventies at kent state in ohio. when this doesnt work expect viliganties, and always expect the police.

[Decolonize The Left]

The U.S. army is in my view capable of attacking its own people if instructed by the president in a propaganda type speech. The president could say the revolutionaries are fighting to destroy what they have fought to build. To destroy peace and american justice, to destroy freedom.

If there is a revolution in the US, it will involve 60-80% of the people. You tell me how the military is gonna look at that and even think that they can suppress it... I don't give a shit what the president says, if you're a soldier, you don't on hear what the president tells you. The word will spread through the military that this is the large majority of the population, not some "radicals".

-- August

[NONSENSO]

i was in the army, (u.s.). i think that few would join the ranks of the revolution, and the ones left would shoot at whomever they were told. most people i've talked to think communism is the great evil that the state would have them bieleve. i love the idea, but i just don't think the youth of america is tough enough to handle a prolonged gurilla campaign. i think all but, a few will tuck tail and run when the poop hits the fan. the rest will be captured and quickly exicuted, before their story can be told. just go around at work and ask the people you work with what they think of communism. they will tell you it's bad, but then ask them what they know beond that and they will draw blank. they also seem to think that occupations will be handed out and you just get what you get. the task of informing these "sheep" is monumental and urgent. small groups would be good and bad, there must be a central, or at least basic chain of command. if not, everyone just goes in different directions. recruit some former soldiers and have them train your gurillas, or it will fail... and the result will be disaterous for the cause. people would say,"ren\member when those "terrorists" tried to kill us all and the kind loving government saved us?"

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Welcome. :)


i was in the army, (u.s.).

Why?

[NONSENSO]

i was 18 and wanted to see the world. things were not so tense then. the left was in charge and they actualy sent us to help the bosnians. that was years ago

[Karl Marx's Camel]

the left was in charge

You mean the Democrats?

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 04:30 PM

technology has this funny habit of decentralizing itself. That is, they won't be the only ones with such technology. As has been seen in the past few decades, small groups have suddenly made great leaps in comparison to standing armies, as well as individuals. A resourceful small group of people can devastate a large, powerful enemy today, and I expect that trend to continue. My concern would be the exact opposite, really; once capitalism is overthrown, there will be small terrorist groups able to wield weapons of immense power against the public at large.


Exactly. Plus, our revolution will be completely urban warfare, and the casualties of civilians will be a prime concern of the military. Seeing the citizens dying around them will hurt the military's morale.
why would it be completly urban warfare? are we just going to leave the Rural areas to them?

[TheReadMenace]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 07:23 PM
The army would never attack their own people in Britain. They may attack northern Irish catholics but thats another argument.


Haha, yeah, they've been doing it for 800 years.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 09:04 PM
Unless you plan to fight the army with a small guerrilla force, I wouldn't worry. We have to earn the support of the overwhelming majority of people before Communism can be realized. That would include most of the soldiers as nate pointed out, the majority of them are from working class backgrounds. Anti-Communist propaganda is a much bigger problem in my opinion. If we can beat that, all those advanced weapons aren't going to help them fight off the will of the masses. Violence? Sure. That's pretty much a guarantee. But if we go about it right, I'm sure we will win.

Besides, look at Iraq. The US as all that superior firepower and technology, and they're still struggling against the Iraqi resistance.
This is very true. No technology is going to help them when we have a majority of the population on our sides. And as Iraq is showing, even the most advanced army in the world cannot pin down a strong-willed population that opposes it.

[Bannockburn]

This is very true. No technology is going to help them when we have a majority of the population on our sides. And as Iraq is showing, even the most advanced army in the world cannot pin down a strong-willed population that opposes it.

I think the above poster does make a good point. Even though Iraq does have a resistance, and they are fighting, nevertheless, despite the media attention, and American casualties, they are hammering out a state in their image. Granted, it will take years, and many more deaths, but with a new Iraqi government formed, a constitution, etc, there is progress be it very slowly.

Nevertheless, I do think a revolution will have to take the military into account. Along with technology, it will not be a cake walk. However, what will be needed is a definite moment where the population, and the majority of that same population come under the need from material scarcity. Food, water, shelter, medical benefits, etc. This, I don't think is very far off in the future. According to the UN, and other source, economic gaps between the rich and poor and increasing, and there is increase hallowing out of the middle class. Essentially what was middle class, is now high poverty, and will become poverty, and then of course abject poverty. When American's can't get their basic needs, then there will be resistance. Until then, I think a revolution will probably not happen.

[Decolonize The Left]

I agree that the times are not correct for a revolution to occur at this moment. But I disagree with the lingering or implied idea that it will happen on its own. That if when the time is right, and the majority of the people are poor, there will be a revolution. I doubt this highly.

Let's take the US as an example. If the people should get so frustrated as to border on revolution, you think they would throw out capitalism? And for communism or anarchism of all things??
Absolutely not. They would replace the government of the time with another capitalist government that claimed to be "for the people".

To wait for the revolution to happen is to wait forever. There must be action by the Left to share the true views of anarchism and communism with the people before you will see a change in thought. Because that is what we must change, if we want to see our revolution, a change in the thinking of almost all Americans (especially all the workers and lower middle classes).

-- August