Support of the Armed Forces

[RedGeorge]

This is just something I've been thinking about over the past few days. Your thoughts and comments would be much appreciated.

It seems to me that, come the time for revolution, we would need the support of the armed forces in order to fully achieve our goal of overthrowing the capitalist state. I'm thinking this because of a couple of reasons: 1) most previous revolutions have come about when the army turned against the ruling government (as in pre-Soviet Rusia), and 2) I once watched a program (actually about Harold Wilson) where various conservative capitalists/ ex-army people admitted to trying to coerce the forces into forming a private army in the 70s when there was felt to be a (however slight) threat of revolution in Britain. This private army would then take steps to make sure the people wouldn't get far in their attempts to overthrow the state.

The thing is, if there were to be an uprising against the government in Britain, it would be the army that would be used to surpress it, and with the best will in the world they would probably win as they're A: better trained, and B: better equipped. So it seems to me that the support of the army for a revolution is vital to its success.

Yes or no?

[Ian]

I don't support the army as it is or those who signed up for it, but the moment the shoot their officers is the moment I support it.

[TC]

Armies fight for the ruling class that pays them...since just like everyone else, they follow their immediate personal interests.

The only instances where soldiers switch sides in mass numbers are when the ruling classes control, for instance their ability to pay them, has already fallen apart, and the revolutionary people's army is percieved as more powerful.


Elements of the Russian Imperial Army joined the Reds when they percieved the Red Guard as more powerful and they were defeated abroad and poorly supported by a weaked, mostly defunct russian state. Likewise some of the Nepali Army (or rather, the ex-Royal Nepali Army) switched loyalities to the Seven Party Alliance only after Communist protestors supported by Maoist troops overwhelmed the capital.


So appealing to the armed forces is meaningless, they do not act as indepedent powers they follow whowever has power in society.

[RedGeorge]

Originally posted by Ian+--> (Ian)I don't support the army as it is or those who signed up for it, but the moment the shoot their officers is the moment I support it. [/b]

Same here.


TragicClown
So appealing to the armed forces is meaningless, they do not act as indepedent powers they follow whowever has power in society.

Fair point. But there is still the fact that, in the 70s, there were people who were forming private armies using sections of the armed forces, and so obviously the army were listening to them and not to the government (because they feared that Wilson was a Soviet spy).

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Here in the US I invision US troops being the real enemy. We'll be fighting them the same way Vietcong had to fight them.

As to whether to support them or not? Stay neutral. Just avoid the issue. Even people who aren't patriotic still have a level of respect for our troops, and publicly saying that the troops should all die will just get everyone pissed at you and communism.

[FinnMacCool]

As to whether to support them or not? Stay neutral. Just avoid the issue. Even people who aren't patriotic still have a level of respect for our troops, and publicly saying that the troops should all die will just get everyone pissed at you and communism.

I agree. That is a must.

[The Bitter Hippy]

I think this point is somewhat moot (unless we are talking about a bolshevik coup here). When the proletariat rises en masse against the ruling class, the army will inevitably be at worst neutral. They will be unwilling to fire on their wives and children, and if the abuses of the system are obvious enough for the rest of the proletarians to risk death, they should be clear enough to stay the hands of the soldiers.

Soldiers are usually just more proletarians exploited and lied to by the ruling classes, and used to impose the will of the rulers abroad.

[Ander]

Well, since the main function of soldiers is to defend the homeland from any threats, be it external or internal, I'm going to assume that the first reaction of the majority of the army would be to suppress the revolt. I don't think that if a revolution took place the armed forces would suddenly decide to topple the government that employs them and that they have sworn to protect.

In the case of a revolution, support in the army (if available) must be acquired early and cannot be depended on.

I don't respect the military very much but if they are willing to cooperate in the overthrowal of capitalism then fine, I would work with them.

[Ander]

Well, since the main function of soldiers is to defend the homeland from any threats, be it external or internal, I'm going to assume that the first reaction of the majority of the army would be to suppress the revolt. I don't think that if a revolution took place the armed forces would suddenly decide to topple the government that employs them and that they have sworn to protect.

In the case of a revolution, support in the army (if available) must be acquired early and cannot be depended on.

I don't respect the military very much but if they are willing to cooperate in the overthrowal of capitalism then fine, I would work with them.

[Ander]

Well, since the main function of soldiers is to defend the homeland from any threats, be it external or internal, I'm going to assume that the first reaction of the majority of the army would be to suppress the revolt. I don't think that if a revolution took place the armed forces would suddenly decide to topple the government that employs them and that they have sworn to protect.

In the case of a revolution, support in the army (if available) must be acquired early and cannot be depended on.

I don't respect the military very much but if they are willing to cooperate in the overthrowal of capitalism then fine, I would work with them.

[Janus]

We need the support of people who can fight. However, we would probably dissemble the army and form an independent militia rather than keep it intact with officers in case they would attempt a coup afterwards. Since most soldiers in the army are generally from working class backgrounds, it is fundamental that we persuade them to our side.

[Janus]

We need the support of people who can fight. However, we would probably dissemble the army and form an independent militia rather than keep it intact with officers in case they would attempt a coup afterwards. Since most soldiers in the army are generally from working class backgrounds, it is fundamental that we persuade them to our side.

[Janus]

We need the support of people who can fight. However, we would probably dissemble the army and form an independent militia rather than keep it intact with officers in case they would attempt a coup afterwards. Since most soldiers in the army are generally from working class backgrounds, it is fundamental that we persuade them to our side.