Draftee vs. volunteer army

[RedCeltic]

Many years ago, the founders of the first modern republic had recognized through intensive years of study of Greek and Roman histories, what lead to the downfall of democracy and the republic in those civilizations. On thing they had noticed was when Rome shifted its military from a conscript army that served mainly defensively, to a professional army that served mainly expansively, it was the end of the republic and beginning of the Roman Empire.

Up to, and during the American Civil war, troops were formed by, and served individual states and not the federal government. The “New York fighting 69’Th” for example represented recent Irish immigrants to New York State. Today, the unit still is in existence, yet is completely integrated within the military ranks, with people from all over the union.

Well, what I’m trying to get at here, while I explain this is that I believe that drafted troops rather than professional enlisted troops are more conductive to democracy. Especially if those troops were managed by state governments and not by the federal government. Imagine if you will, a president who goes to congress to fight a war and only a handful of states pledge to send troops to support it. Or, imagine if you will, a situation like the current one where the federal government is unwilling to set a time table to bring the troops home. Well Vermont may have began pulling it’s troops out in 2004. (if sent in the first place.)

Romans knew quite well, (I forget who said this but a Roman did…) the existence of a standing army is the death of the Republic and birth of an Empire. The people must have more control over how and when military units are sent into harms way.

The difference in opinion over the draft and the hired killer ( volunteer) is thus. During the Vietnam war, many people argued that it should be an individual choice if you wish to serve or not to serve. Thus believing that a land as vast and populated as the United States would somehow be at a loss for cannon fodder. This is utopian at best. There is no lack of psychopaths, maniacs, misguided youths, adventure seekers, and plane morons who are willing to serve and die for any and all causes the federal government sees fit to spill their blood for.

While a drafted army serves primarily the public and can be swayed by public opinion, a hired professional army serves only the government, is removed from the people and popular opinion.

So, anyway, I am interested in hearing people’s thoughts on this… if a draftee or a volunteer army is better, and who better serves the will of the people.

[BreadBros]

No army of a capitalist nation serves the people at all. The decision by states to organize a conscript vs. volunteer army is mostly an economic and geopolitical one. Depending on the necessity of armed forces and the economic situation, the state will organize its armed forces accordingly to maximize the efficiency of the state.

[RedCeltic]

Obviously I am talking about an army of the capitalist state, and therefore probably an exercise in the “lesser of two evils” bullshit. I suppose I was being kind of abstract in thinking.

[RedSabine]

the army of a capitalist state is always the enemy of the people. But in the case of a people's army during and after the revolution, it should be a volunteer army.

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 09:18 pm
the army of a capitalist state is always the enemy of the people. But in the case of a people's army during and after the revolution, it should be a volunteer army.
Maybe i would have been a better question for me to have asked if a federal government was always by nature warlike. Surely the most ideal situation would be stateless and classless. It is the state that makes war and the worker that fights them.

An army that is organized in a post - capitalist society that truly represents the people would surely not be expansive, or combative since such is the nature of a state, and an army in such a society would be focused on defending it.


Yet, in the world of capitalist states, wars, and armies, it just seems to me that it is more conductive to expansionism and imperialism, to have a hired profesional killing marchine (army) rather than forcing everone to serve.

[Tower of Bebel]

Hmmm, the army is a nice subject for me to talk of.
I like your intro to this thread, especially what was written about the ancient Greeks and Romans. the is only one thing I can say:
The army is a copy of society and suffers from all its diseases, usually at a higher temperature.

[phoenixoftime]

I would lean towards a unified, centrally-controlled force based upon a draftee system. From a purely operational perspective there is less likelyhood of your forces becoming incongruous for political or bureaucratic reasons, and it's much easier to sift through masses of troops to find the right ones rather than having a handful of very willing but useless personnel.

If we're talking about what I'd do if I was running an army in a Workers' Republic (I'm assuming that there are still other capitalist countries around) here's my plan. Form a professional armed forces, complemented by a compulsory part-time militia, which is under democratic control. Similar to the model used in Switzerland. This still allows you to take advantage of the expertise of your very best troops by allowing them to operate in a full time capacity, while still ensuring it remains focussed on defending the revolution from the grassroots. The culture and political framework you build around this force is very important, though, as you want to make sure the power remains with the people.

In a bourgeoisie democracy, it's really just going to come back to the underlying political system. I think it would be suicide to split up the US military into separate state armed forces - why not just fix the electoral system?

[RNK]

I'm against the entire idea of a "standing army", that is, a permanent army. Up until the 19th and 20th century there were very few "standing" armies, as only the richest and most imperialist nations/kindgoms/empires had them (ie Britain, France, Spain). Prior to this, nations would only build armies if they believed that an opponent might be doing the same. it wasn't until the 20th century that the concept of every-fucking-body having a standing professional army developed. Ironically, President Eisenhower even warned about the development of the "military industrial complex" which is kind of the next phase of professional militarism; once a state develops a permanent army, that army can become its own independant organism, with its own economy, its own politics, and its own industry. Which I think is connected to it all.

personally I think there should be no standing army, as I said. There can be some sort of dormant centralized organism responsible for developing a central army on a defensive basis, ie, in case of invasion or threat of invasion; but otherwise the people should form their own immediate defense through local militias tied democratically to communities.

I would support a centralized military training organism, though. The 'dormant military command', during peacetime, could institute a centralized training ministry. Not an authority with any actual combat unit in its command but simply a centralized source of "pooling" military experience and knowledge, which can be used by anyone to train (after some sort of accountability check, of course; perhaps an endorsement from members of their community should be needed).

[Tower of Bebel]

The Marxist internet archive has many writings on military (science): MIA (http://www.marxists.org/subject/war/index.htm). I'm still in favor of a democratic army of volunteers, but I'm no expert.

[RGacky3]

Theres a third option which is getting quite popular amung the super Capitalist Powers, that of a Mercinary army, or private military contractors, which are being used more and more in the Iraq war and the war in afghanistan. I think Mercinaries are the lowest of the low when it comes to military, seeing as its violence for profit, and profit goes beyond all political ideology or moral sense.

I personally would like to see the military abolished, no more military, parhaps volunteer militias who are only allowed to be militarized when under immidiate attack. Standing armies controlled by governments never serve the people.

As for Draftee vs. Volunteer, I am kind of torn, Draftee could be good because the Draftees can protest the war with more weight (I.E. no one can say 'you chose to be here'.) Whereas at the same time I am definately against forcing people to take up arms. A Volunteer army is bad because it prays on poverty, and the Volunteers are kind of stuck to their choice, and their protests would have less weight, but also less coercion is being used (obviously some type of coercion is being used because of the poverty factor, but no as direct as a draftee army is.)

[Djehuti]

I absolutly prefer a draftee army over a volunteer army, (but I also live in a country that does not war very much, our working class is not murdered in constant capitalist wars) otherwise training and equipment are monopolized to people loyal to the state.

But the best alternative is ofcource large scale disarmament.

[RedLenin]

Well, I believe that a standing army will be necessary immediately after a successful revolution. If the workers take power in a country, especially a backward one, there will be a serious need to defend the country against imperialist attack. It is nice to talk about localized militas, but such a system is simply not coordinated enough to repell multiple imperialist armies. A workers state needs to build it's own highly centralized and disciplined army.

The first thing a workers state should do is to arm and train every man and woman in the country. That way, everyone is a trained fighter. You can then build a strong army of volunteers and have it exist alongside the general armed people. A draft would only be necessary in times of dire necessity. A commander in cheif should be elected, and be able to be recalled, by the congress of workers councils, and this person will have the power of the army.

A standing army is a necessity in this high stage of imperialism. However, having an army involves having a lot of problems. By having an army, you make the potential for a bureaucratic degeneration of the revolution a lot higher. That is why, over time, it will be necessary to break down the contraditions between the standing army and the armed people. This will mean drawing the army from the people, democratizing the army, and decentralizing the army as resistance disapears. In this sense, the army can "wither away" and become integrated into the general armed population.

So as far as conscription goes, we should not make a virtue out of necessity. Conscription should only be implemented when there is a dire need for it. Otherwise, the army should be composed of dedicated revolutionaries, ie volunteers.

[Tower of Bebel]

What to do with the excisting army when we reached the stage of socialism? In the stage of anarchism the army should be abolished, but in socialism it is not. Should we do the same as the Bolsheviks did? Use the system of komissars?

[BreadBros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 05:28 pm
What to do with the excisting army when we reached the stage of socialism? In the stage of anarchism the army should be abolished, but in socialism it is not. Should we do the same as the Bolsheviks did? Use the system of komissars?
Can you explain the system of komissars to us? I'm unfamiliar with it.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by BreadBros+April 12, 2007 11:00 pm--> (BreadBros @ April 12, 2007 11:00 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2007 05:28 pm
What to do with the excisting army when we reached the stage of socialism? In the stage of anarchism the army should be abolished, but in socialism it is not. Should we do the same as the Bolsheviks did? Use the system of komissars?
Can you explain the system of komissars to us? I'm unfamiliar with it.[/b]
Commissar - Political officer.

During the initial stages of the Civil War the Red Guards were throughly inept in fighting conventional warfare.And the guerrillas tactics unadaptable to the largely open battle grounds of Russian landscape.

So Trotsky commissar of the Red Army at that time proposed using officers and commanders of the just demolished Imperial Russian Army to the ranks of the Red Army. This arised to the question about the Loyalty of those officers who were trained at the Russian Army which served the Czars.

To ensure their Loyalty their families were taken Hostage in some cases. For the other cases this system of Commissar was used. In this system dual command was used. Any thing that is ordered by the officer should be co-signed by the Commissar.

Commissars also had the political responsibility for their units actions.So their role was very much hard and only the prominent Bolsheviks were given this responsibility.

Trotsky's Military Writings Volume one (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1918/military/index.htm)
Trotsky's Military writings Volume 2 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1919/military/index.htm)
Volume 3 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/military/index.htm)
__________________________________________________ _________________

Like the Bolsheviks realised and did I think that a standing professional army would be the material necessity for a workers state.

Military is one thing we all must leave aside of equality and non-hierarchy. Any army Guerrilla or Conventional require a chain of command to be more efficient. Autonomous Militias(even guerillas for that matter) can win battles but cannot win wars. If the proletariat can't win wars it can't hold on the political power it had gained.

[Janus]

Neither form of military recruitment is subject to the control of the people within a capitalist nation especially since there is always a rigid chain of command controlled by the ruling class/state. Certainly, consciption allows less of a chance for a military coup to occur though history has shown us that this is not always the case (Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, etc.). There are benefits and negatives of both but either way, it's like deciding on the best poison to take.

[rouchambeau]

Raccoon:


The army is a copy of society and suffers from all its diseases, usually at a higher temperature.

Did you come up with that all by yourself?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm for a standing army in the era of socialist revolution and revolutionary stamocap - basically what RedLenin said AND MORE - and here's why:

Standing armies aren't just about shooting the guys on the other side and winning (defense, attack, etc.). More and more, they take up other roles, including professional disaster and other emergency reliefs (especially in peacekeeping-oriented countries like Canada and Germany). In Germany, there's the draftee's option to go into some sort of civil service equivalent (while most likely not a option when the country's under attack, it is an alternative to peacekeeping in hostile areas of the world), like serving in a military hospital as a medic.

At the very least, the volunteers among them have the potential to be the most prestigious subbotniks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subbotnik).

On the subject of commissars, the problem with dual command is that the commissar usually does not have adequate military training (the most notorious political commissar ever being none other than the inept Leonid Brezhnev). I'm not saying I'm against dual command; I'm merely saying that the commissar ought to have more military training in an academy or something.


A standing army is a necessity in this high stage of imperialism. However, having an army involves having a lot of problems. By having an army, you make the potential for a bureaucratic degeneration of the revolution a lot higher.

Not necessarily now, though, given the alternate options above. If you see more eagerness to participate in disaster/emergency relief like more advanced firefighting, there will be less people to support the ambitious militarists who might plague the top ranks.



All of you are forgetting one other thing: "bureaucratic degeneration" occurs when the military officers have too much organizational power. "Ministers" of defense should always be civilians - albeit: A) having served in the military at least 10-20 years ago (prevents contacts with old buddies to plot coups, while pointing out that they have actually served at one point in the past), and B) having been trained in military strategic planning to be competent in the position (unlike Rumsfeld and many of his predecessors). The military officers closest to him at the immediate top should face the same restrictions as the US military officers in the Joint Chiefs.

[DISTURBEDrbl911]

Simple as this, those who volunteer want to fight and possibly die and will believe everything they are told and follow it. Those drafted won't necessarily and don't want to be there.

[Ultra-Violence]

i like what chomsky had to say about this. he siad that a volunteer army is just a bunch of mercenaries and you ussaully get people from the bottom of society except for the ocasional lunatic. hes said if you get a draft army the country would be more reluctant to go to war becuae of what happend after veitnam