Heirarchies of Armed Forces and other institutions

[drain.you]

Hello,
Its another thread of me questioning authority I'm afraid :P

I've always wondered since my first interest in communism, how are the armies organised? And surely, a military force of any kind requires a hierarchy of authority to operate smoothly? Even Castro's revoluntionaries fell into rank.
Is the fact that it seems essential for a chain of command to exist in military simply mean that it cannot be adapted to communism/anarchism and after the revolution should simply be destroyed? After all, most leftists oppose war anyway and after the global revolution is complete, will there be a need for a military force?

If an institution relies on authority and heirarchy and cannot be transformed into one of equality then does it have no place in a society after a communist or anarchist revolution?
I stumbled upon the idea of religion in my head earlier this morning when considering this. Religion, as far as I know, has always had a chain of authority, usually like this :

>Follower submits to Preacher
>Preacher submits to Higer Preacher
>High Preacher submits to God

Can this adapted into an institution of equality. Can the follower be a preacher aswell as a follower? I think this is probably possible. So it can be adapted.

But back to the Armed Forces query, Armed Forces have a chain of authority something like this, baring in mind I don't know much regarding army ranks lol:

>Soldier
>Mini Leader of group of Soldiers
>Leader of Mini Leaders
>Top Leader

Can you have a soldier performing the role of Top Leader? I think not. War must be well organised otherwise you will be defeated, right? bad organisation has always been a main reason for military failure.

Education system, not everyone is equal in this. Teacher is above pupil (much like the related thread I start regarding parent authority, parents are above children in Western society). Can this be changed? Adapted? I'm not sure.

Let me know what you guys think, sorry if I'm just waffling nonsense :(

[violencia.Proletariat]

i cant say what it would be like for the marxists. but for us anarchists, there would be no "army". there would only be workers militias aligned with the union federation. it would be organized by democratically elected leaders, elected by the soldiers, which are recallable at any time.

[drain.you]

Ah! Okay comrade Nate, that makes sense.
A few questions though:

1)These workers militias would be used for defensive purposes only I pressume?

2) Would these also be used for policing?

3)What about naval forces and airforces? These too ran by workers?

4)Would there be a complusary amount of army training? Say a year when they reach a certain age or something or will it be alongside their work?

5)What would happen during a time of war? The workers cannot work for and defend their country at the same time...

6)What about people opposed to war? Will they just simply not be a part of these worker militias?

Thanks in advance for replies...

[KC]

I've always wondered since my first interest in communism, how are the armies organised?

There is no army. There is no workers' militia. Everybody is armed. It is easy for them to organize if they want to. Plus there is no need for one.


And surely, a military force of any kind requires a hierarchy of authority to operate smoothly? Even Castro's revoluntionaries fell into rank.

There is no army.


Is the fact that it seems essential for a chain of command to exist in military simply mean that it cannot be adapted to communism/anarchism and after the revolution should simply be destroyed? After all, most leftists oppose war anyway and after the global revolution is complete, will there be a need for a military force?

No.


If an institution relies on authority and heirarchy and cannot be transformed into one of equality then does it have no place in a society after a communist or anarchist revolution?

The army, which is a hierarchial system, is only needed in a hierarchial society.


I stumbled upon the idea of religion in my head earlier this morning when considering this. Religion, as far as I know, has always had a chain of authority, usually like this :

>Follower submits to Preacher
>Preacher submits to Higer Preacher
>High Preacher submits to God

Can this adapted into an institution of equality. Can the follower be a preacher aswell as a follower? I think this is probably possible. So it can be adapted.

No.



But back to the Armed Forces query, Armed Forces have a chain of authority something like this, baring in mind I don't know much regarding army ranks lol:

>Soldier
>Mini Leader of group of Soldiers
>Leader of Mini Leaders
>Top Leader

Can you have a soldier performing the role of Top Leader? I think not. War must be well organised otherwise you will be defeated, right? bad organisation has always been a main reason for military failure.

There won't be armies, or wars of the sort you are thinking of.


Education system, not everyone is equal in this. Teacher is above pupil (much like the related thread I start regarding parent authority, parents are above children in Western society). Can this be changed? Adapted? I'm not sure.

Yes it can be.

[ComradeOm]

I expect that a hierarch based army will continue to exist in a socialist state. It does of course depend on the nature of the revolution and what counterrevolutionary forces exist. I am however positively against the relying on militias to defend the revolution. If history shows one thing it is that militias continually fare poorly when pitched against professional, trained troops on a level setting.

As for non-hierarchal armies, the battlefield is one area where a hierarchy is most defiantly needed. In combat situations there must be someone to give the orders and those who follow them without question. Its not a matter of ideology but of practicality.

Hopefully as the revolution spreads and socialism develops a functional army can be phased out along with the rest of the state bodies.

[violencia.Proletariat]

1)These workers militias would be used for defensive purposes only I pressume?

i think they should be



2) Would these also be used for policing?

i guess that would depend on what situation needs "policing"

for example: if some unstable person was help up in a house with a gun, or something like that, then yes.

but generally no, there will be no police.



3)What about naval forces and airforces? These too ran by workers?

ive thought about airforces before but i dont think they are necessary if most of the world is going through revolution. but yes, they would be volunteer forces.


4)Would there be a complusary amount of army training? Say a year when they reach a certain age or something or will it be alongside their work?

im not a military expert so idk how long basic training would be. but its VOLUNTEER, so its not like you turn a certain age and you have to take training.


5)What would happen during a time of war? The workers cannot work for and defend their country at the same time...

if everyone who can work is working, there are plenty of people to fight, and plenty of people to stay behind and work. besides, during times of war and ration, all unecessary manufacturing/jobs would be put on hold for protection of the community. this would also help supply extra workers.


6)What about people opposed to war? Will they just simply not be a part of these worker militias?

its volunteer, but if the community takes on an effort to supply the militias during times of war, they would be expected to help out. whether thats working in a munitions plant, helping food supplies, etc.

[drain.you]

I think that for all of your answers, you have relied on the fact that the whole world will have had the revolution. What about before this? I'm not a fan of socialism in one country but I think there will be a domino effect over 50 or 100years, not all turning red at same time.

[KC]

I think that for all of your answers, you have relied on the fact that the whole world will have had the revolution. What about before this? I'm not a fan of socialism in one country but I think there will be a domino effect over 50 or 100years, not all turning red at same time.


Well, you were speaking of a communist society. I believe that socialism will pass very quickly into communism, as it must. As soon as one large region turns socialist, the rest will see the benefits and turn socialist. Communism would happen soon after, as once the world is socalist it is communist.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by ComradeOm
As for non-hierarchal armies, the battlefield is one area where a hierarchy is most defiantly needed. In combat situations there must be someone to give the orders and those who follow them without question. It's not a matter of ideology but of practicality.

At least, that's what we've been told by military careerists throughout recorded history.

Is it really "an eternal truth"? Will it "always be true"?

Is it just an "accident" that those who celebrate hierarchy reserve the bulk of their praise for the "military virtues"...in which words like obedience, duty, discipline, etc. are spoken in tones suitable to the sacred.

Might it ever be possible that the time will come when "combat operations" might be decided in an egalitarian fashion?

To many of you, this will sound "impossible"...it's "too far out".

But then so is communism, isn't it?

Those who are content with the socialist variant of class society have and will organize hierarchal military forces just like the ones we have now.

Being in one of those armies is just like being a slave.

Do you want something better than that?

I do!

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

[ComradeOm]

To be honest redstar I was simply using a quick glance through history. The efficiency of a military force tends to be tightly tied to its training, organisation and discipline. Of course that’s a simplistic view but discounting tactical variables the better trained and more co-ordinated army tends to win. That’s always been the case whether in Roman Legions or German Panzer corp.

Naturally that’s not to say that this won’t change in the future but personally I find it hard to imagine, especially when any such force will almost certainly be pitched against a counterrevolutionary army.

On the other hand of course I don’t imagine that any socialist regime will condone the sort of dehumanising murder machines that currently represent the likes of the US Marines.

[anomaly]

I largely agree with Lazar on this. There will be no 'army' in communist society that has a 'specialized' role of 'defense' (remember that in communism, specialization itself should be eliminated or atleast blurred).

Che Guevara once had the idea of a 'guerrilla nation', in which every single citizen is incorporated into the military. This will, for the most part, be the case in communist society. Essentially, rather than a 'professional army', every single citizen will have a gun.

[drain.you]

There will be no 'army' in communist society
So if your country turned communist next week would you just abandon your army despite having the majority of the world opposing the reigme?

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 04:17 PM

Might it ever be possible that the time will come when "combat operations" might be decided in an egalitarian fashion?

Read "Homage To Catalonia", by Orwell (yes, I know you hate the guy, but this is before he became a reactionary).

He describes his experiences in the militias and he answers your question pretty well I think.

You can read it for free right here:
http://www.george-orwell.org/Homage_to_Catalonia/

The book is only around 300 pages if you decide to get it from a library.

[KC]

So if your country turned communist next week would you just abandon your army despite having the majority of the world opposing the reigme?

I'm sorry, maybe you need to realize that there is no such thing as a communist state.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 06:38 PM
I think that for all of your answers, you have relied on the fact that the whole world will have had the revolution. What about before this? I'm not a fan of socialism in one country but I think there will be a domino effect over 50 or 100years, not all turning red at same time.
that doesnt matter. the benefits of having a militia beat the benefits of a regular army. im speaking of the us, since thats where i live. i dont think many countries are logistically prepared, or ever will be by the time we have a revolution, to invade and occupy a large portion of america.

[Morpheus]

By the time America has a revolution most of the world will already be in communism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 07:42 PM
By the time America has a revolution most of the world will already be in communism.
Yeah, I've felt the same way often enough. :(

But we should not let our feelings interfere with a sober analysis of historical realities.

The United States is a very advanced capitalist country...and will, if Marx was right, be communist long before most of the "third world" countries presently undergoing the transition from feudalism to capitalism.

I expect the U.S. and Canada will follow the example of western Europe...it's the "logical" sequence of future events.

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

[DisIllusion]

I agree with Nate, relatively well armed worker guerillas seem the best. Guerillas will always triumph over an organized fighting force since they have the support of those in the area around them, plus they have much more motivation than a soldier who is just looking forward to his paycheck and when he can go home.

On the issue of leadership, I agree with the fact that there must be some form of leadership in the Revolution but this has to be dissolved as soon as possible, and if possible, by the worker militia. Che Guevara demonstrated this when he left the Cuban government, where he had a comfortable position and could have reaped the rewards of the Revolution, but instead went to the Congo and Bolivia to continue spreading his message.

[Commie Rat]

The United States is a very advanced capitalist country...and will, if Marx was right, be communist long before most of the "third world" countries presently undergoing the transition from feudalism to capitalism.


If the two were independant from each other then maybe, but as the world is increaingly linked up and globalized i think some stages of the progression of society will be skipped as america is a bastion to many countires if it falls then others will fall without the natural progression of society.

the world is very different to when marx lived