How should a revolutionary army be organised?

[apathy maybe]

I've just been browsing Orwell's Homage To Catalonia (http://orwell.ru/library/novels/Homage_to_Catalonia/english/e_htc) again, and it struck me the differences he described between how the militias were organised, equal pay, no saluting, no privileged officer class, democratically elected officers to a large extent and the general army was organised.

What do you think? Do you think that a revolutionary army or set of militias should have different pay rates for the officers and privates? Does an army need the institution of saluting? Can an elected officer corps actually be efficient in enforcing orders?

Should orders be obeyed because of comradeship and belief in revolution, or because the person might be shot or otherwise punished if they don't obey?

I have my opinions (which I am sure you can guess), but I am interested in what other people think. Particularly people who identify as Stalinists, Marxist-Leninists, Leninists and Trotskists (if only because I'm sure I know what the anarchists think).

[apathy maybe]

And, on a similar question, should there only be one revolutionary army? Can there exist militias and a "state" (or similar) army at the same time? Should any such militias be folded into a "Popular Army"?

(And of course, I should have made clear from the beginning, this is assuming some sort of civil war or defensive war.)

[More Fire for the People]

I think the Barcelona experience paved the way for future models of workers' organizations in the case of civil war. When the revolution begins it is formless: it is a thrown brick, a Molotov cocktail, an occupied school, a strike, a burning car, and so many more amorphous expressions of deep-seated discontent. But a some point the gleeful frolly of destruction of the oppressor's immediate power gives way to the melancholy of the realization that the power of the oppressor still looms overhead. It is in our darkest hour that we must turn towards the civil war.

As communists I think it quite clear what our duty is. That in the darkest hour we must act as a beacon of light. Not by smashing bones or cracking skulls but by clear and illuminating though & action. Therefore when it comes time to organize militias then we will help to organize them in the most revolutionary and progressive of manners — in a way that contains the seed of the society we hope to create.

Therefore we advocate:
(1) Election of soldiers committees for the oversight of action;
(2) Equal pay for all soldiers;
(3) No saluting, no debasement, no hierarchical privileges;
(4) Direct election of officers;
(5) Oversight of militia action by popular assemblies;
(6) Unification of the militias under a single banner and central administrative unit;
(7) Oversight of the whole army by the central administrative unit;

[The Grey Blur]

It depends.

[Demogorgon]

I would like to see most officers elected by the soldiers.

The overall command of the army should be democratically accountable to the whole people though, not just the soldiers.

Hopefully as time goes on, there will be less and less need for an army.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 24, 2007 11:41 pm
It depends.
Care to expand on this point.

In what circumstances do you think that a centrally controlled hierarchical army would be useful? (Perhaps when the revolution is no a seriously communistic one but rather a "liberal capitalist" one?)

In what circumstances do you think that a non-centrally controlled democratic army would be useful? (Perhaps after the revolution and things have settled down?)

[The Grey Blur]

Like I said, it all depends on the situation and context. Hypothesising on the subject is pointless.

[Whitten]

Democratic Centralism. The central command of the army should be elected, however an organised and integrated structure of command and operations are necessary in a real war scenario. This way also limits the ability for infiltration to hinder the effectivness of the army, as the majority of the army would need to be infiltrators in order for them to have any effect, when compared with the effect small numbers of infiltrators could easily have on battlefield direct-democracy squads.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 09:21 am
Democratic Centralism. The central command of the army should be elected, however an organised and integrated structure of command and operations are necessary in a real war scenario.
[QUOTE]


agreed, the example i am thinking of is the 1st minnesota volunteer infantry which elected their NCOs by democratic vote (which could be recalled) and had a colonel appointed by the civilian governor of the state (Alexander Ramsey in this case).I believe the Minnesota volunteers actually protested sufficently and hired legal counsel to remove Ramseys first colonel ("Raisins") appointment after the first battle of Bull Run.

Extensive oversight such as boards to oversee the actions of individual soldiers should be kept to a minimum instead relying on the principles of Democratic Centralism to produce a focused military unit, although inserting democracy into any aspect of war is sometimes problematic as in battle actions often require quick and bold responses that won't wait for majority agreement. Oversight should come from the individual socialist principles of the soldiers themselves not a board or committee.

While the idea that the army or militias should embody the characteristics of the movement and the society that they desire to found is noble I find this to be somewhat utopian and not reflective of the realities of warfare.

as far as militia being seperate from state forces i feel as though this is necessary, local forces being used and taking the lead whenever possible supplemented or reinforced by state forces in defensive actions.

saluting i actually find to be quite acceptable, one of the best ways historically to train soldiers is to practice drills. training by repetition and by memorizing positions to thus produce a unit that will instead focus on their maneuvers as opposed to the people dying around them. although saluting may not seem necessary (and it is not specifically) if it is eliminated it must be replaced by other drills that produce similar effects, to produce disipline and rank not to debase them but to ensure that when engaged in battle that they do not break. I see no problem with saluting my superiors especially if i voted to make them that way.

-R

[Labor Shall Rule]

Karl Marx, Neue Zeit Vol.XX, 1, 1901-02, p. 709:

"If you look up the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire, you will find that I declare that the next attempt of the French Revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it, and this is the precondition for every real people's revolution on the Continent. And this is what our heroic Party comrades in Paris are attempting."

It is necessary, in order for a working people's republic to even exist, that the bourgeois state, and all the bureaucratic ills associated with it, should be completely destroyed. I would generally agree with what Hopscotch Anthill drew about what to replace this armed body with; a militia based out of working class organizations with the original intent of defending the revolution at any cost. I would personally advocate, just within the years following the seizure of the political power, that this 'central administrative unit' would be elected by the soldier's committees to a term, rather than being up for recall at any moment, due to the necessity of ensuring effective leadership at a time in which reaction will find it's form through violence and intimidation.

[Janus]

Previous discussions here:
Military tactics (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=39405&hl=military)
Army leadership (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48902&st=175)

As far as military organization goes, I think some sort of centralized command will most likely be needed depending on the type and scale of conflict that ensues. Yet in the meantime, the militias/armed forces should also operate on the general principles of the revolution and direct democracy without sacrificing its own effectiveness but also to prevent any potential military coup from taking place.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

the type of conflict and the scale are obviously important .... additionally it should be noted that the general historical trend, with more and more nation states withering away to ethnic, tribal, religious, or political affiliations, towards low-intensity warfare.

the book Environment, Scarcity, and Violence by Thomas F. Homer-Dixon has an interesting take on the ways in which non-state groups (big and small: corporations and militias) are increasingly replacing the nation state as the worlds power brokers. Although its a bit dated (1991) The Transformation of Warfare by Martin Van Creveld predicts the rise of non-state actors in many corners of the world with an accuracy that is sometimes spectacular.

either way, the smaller the actors involved the greater a chance for implementing more democractic proceses. Frequently larger units of organization require more massive structures that often substantially seperate the strategists with soldiers thus a deterence democracy.

-R

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 24, 2007 12:31 pm
I've just been browsing Orwell's Homage To Catalonia (http://orwell.ru/library/novels/Homage_to_Catalonia/english/e_htc) again, and it struck me the differences he described between how the militias were organised, equal pay, no saluting, no privileged officer class, democratically elected officers to a large extent and the general army was organised.

What do you think? Do you think that a revolutionary army or set of militias should have different pay rates for the officers and privates? Does an army need the institution of saluting? Can an elected officer corps actually be efficient in enforcing orders?

Should orders be obeyed because of comradeship and belief in revolution, or because the person might be shot or otherwise punished if they don't obey?

I have my opinions (which I am sure you can guess), but I am interested in what other people think. Particularly people who identify as Stalinists, Marxist-Leninists, Leninists and Trotskists (if only because I'm sure I know what the anarchists think).
Read Mao's military writings, fuck, just read Democracy in the Three Main Fields (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/ch15.htm) part of the little red book.



A proper measure of democracy should be put into effect in the army, chiefly by abolishing the feudal practice of bullying and beating and by having officers and men share weal and woe. Once this is done, unity will be achieved between officers and men, the combat effectiveness of the army will be greatly increased, and there will be no doubt of our ability to sustain the long, cruel war.

"On Protracted War" (May 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 186.


Apart from the role played by the Party, the reason why the Red Army has been able to carry on in spite of such poor material conditions and such frequent engagements is its practice of democracy. The officers do not beat the men; officers and men receive equal treatment; soldiers are free to hold meetings and to speak out; trivial formalities have been done away with; and the accounts are open for all to inspect.... In China the army needs democracy as much as the people do. Democracy in our army is an important weapon for undermining the feudal mercenary army.

"The Struggle in the Chingkang Mountains" (November 25, 1928), Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 83.

[luxemburg89]

Therefore we advocate:
(1) Election of soldiers committees for the oversight of action;
(2) Equal pay for all soldiers;
(3) No saluting, no debasement, no hierarchical privileges;
(4) Direct election of officers;
(5) Oversight of militia action by popular assemblies;
(6) Unification of the militias under a single banner and central administrative unit;
(7) Oversight of the whole army by the central administrative unit;

Yeah this may be what we want to happen, BUT, it failed in the USSR. Although it can be argued that was due to the monarchist heirarchal structure that the people were used to, and so the army itself couldn't be re-adjusted in time to prepare for the civil war. However if we had enough time, and there were no impending wars, then I think it should definitely should be tried.

[Bilan]

RedDali


I would personally advocate, just within the years following the seizure of the political power, that this 'central administrative unit' would be elected by the soldier's committees to a term, rather than being up for recall at any moment, due to the necessity of ensuring effective leadership at a time in which reaction will find it's form through violence and intimidation.

I disagree. If effective leadership is being carried out, acting in the interests of the revolution, and the revolutionary soliders, there would be no reason for them (the revolutionaries) to recall the 'leader' or 'leaders', would there? Whilst if this leader in place does act in contradiction or in conflict with the interests of the revolution and this leader is serving for a "term", the revolution will simply have to put up with it, and the revolutionaries will be robbed of their power.
This is not something that we should want to happen.

[Severian]

Originally posted by NorthStarRepublicML+May 25, 2007 12:37 pm--> (NorthStarRepublicML @ May 25, 2007 12:37 pm) agreed, the example i am thinking of is the 1st minnesota volunteer infantry which elected their NCOs by democratic vote (which could be recalled) and had a colonel appointed by the civilian governor of the state (Alexander Ramsey in this case).I believe the Minnesota volunteers actually protested sufficently and hired legal counsel to remove Ramseys first colonel ("Raisins") appointment after the first battle of Bull Run. [/b]
In U.S. history, state militias were famous for their ineffectiveness. And their poor discipline including tendency to commit atrocities, even more than federal troops during warfare against Indians.

Look, the problem is that military units don't exist to serve the interests of their members. Unless they become bandits, basically, operating to enrich their members at the expense of the civilian population. Which they often have throughout recorded history, it took a lot of Prussian discipline for banditry and looting to stop being the norm. Still is the norm in some militaries.

You might do well electing officers once, when a new unit is set up and you want officers and NCOs who have the confidence of the ranks. But if a officer or NCO is dependent on the goodwill of the ranks to keep office - they won't want to send those soldiers into the meatgrinder. Even when that's necessary, as it sometimes is in war.

The army exists to serve the needs of all working people - not just those in the army. The officers and NCOs need to be responsible to all working people, and their elected political representatives - not just those in the army.

Rarely if ever has anybody ever won a war with an army organized super-democratically. Some revolutionary wars have started out that way - including the U.S. War of Independence and Russian Civil War - but not ended that way, because they realized it was incompatible with victory.

Spain was a special case because it was necessary to resist the subordination of workers' militia to a bourgeois central command - but it proved impossible to win without a workers' central command, of course.


Originally posted by NorthStar+--> (NorthStar)Extensive oversight such as boards to oversee the actions of individual soldiers should be kept to a minimum instead relying on the principles of Democratic Centralism to produce a focused military unit, although inserting democracy into any aspect of war is sometimes problematic as in battle actions often require quick and bold responses that won't wait for majority agreement. Oversight should come from the individual socialist principles of the soldiers themselves not a board or committee. [/b]

Oh for crying out loud! Why are some people always trying to produce a military force completely unaccountable to the civilian population? Those with guns accountable only to themselves....this is a huge step backward even compared to bourgeois democracy. Military rule always involves the military enriching itself at the expense of the rest of the population.


Originally posted by luxemburgist
Yeah this may be what we want to happen, BUT, it failed in the USSR. Although it can be argued that was due to the monarchist heirarchal structure that the people were used to, and so the army itself couldn't be re-adjusted in time to prepare for the civil war.

That would be a complete distortion of the sequence of events. In fact, the Red Guards started out with elected officers and all that, which proved impractical. So - the centralized and if you like, hierarchichal, Red Army was set up. It was not a continuation of the monarchist army, which was disbanded.

So the army was "re-adjusted" - during the civil war - just not the way you'd like.


ex-[email protected]
Read Mao's military writings, fuck, just read Democracy in the Three Main Fields part of the little red book.

Bubba, Mao talked a lot about democracy but he didn't mean the same thing by it as most people do. At all.

The CCP's peasant armies had relatively little material privilege for officers, etc. But they certainly didn't have elected officers or anything like that.


BiteTheHand
Whilst if this leader in place does act in contradiction or in conflict with the interests of the revolution and this leader is serving for a "term", the revolution will simply have to put up with it, and the revolutionaries will be robbed of their power.

Stop and think! If an officer can't be removed by the soldiers, he/she can't be removed at all? Even in bourgeois armies officers are removed by elected political leaders if they act in conflict with the interests of the class they serve.....

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 25, 2007 10:29 am
Like I said, it all depends on the situation and context. Hypothesising on the subject is pointless.
I disagree. That is like saying that hypothesising about the future nature of any post-capitalist society is pointless. Obviously the material conditions will affect any revolution and so on. But despite this, it is still worth discussing, to hopefully learn from the mistakes of the past and so on.

After all, we hardly want to have a revolution to come around and then have it collapse like the Russian and Chinese revolutions obviously collapsed (of course, the question of when this happened is left as an exercise to the reader).

It is perfectly lgocal to hypotheses that a centrally controlled 'revolutionary' army, with differential pay scales, saluting and so on (the features of a modern "bourgeois" army) will degenerate into an army for the purpose of upholding privilege rather then one that is for the liberation of people.

How do we abolish privilege and so on when we embed it in our institutions? A question that anarchists generally have an answer for, we don't embed privilege at all, we abolish it full stop. (The question of whether power can be considered a privilege or not is left for another discussion.)

[NorthStarRepublicML]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 10:00 pm

In U.S. history, state militias were famous for their ineffectiveness. And their poor discipline including tendency to commit atrocities, even more than federal troops during warfare against Indians.

Look, the problem is that military units don't exist to serve the interests of their members. Unless they become bandits, basically, operating to enrich their members at the expense of the civilian population. Which they often have throughout recorded history, it took a lot of Prussian discipline for banditry and looting to stop being the norm. Still is the norm in some militaries.

[QUOTE]

Militia are typically CIVILIAN soldiers ... part time soldiers, or non-professionals who fight when they are called up to fight, not living at a barracks or base but living in their towns, villages, and cities. US state militias, such as the previously mentioned 1st Minnesota, were known for their actions at both the first Battle of Bull Run where they were said to be the only unit that retreated with "dignity" (as well as capturing the highest ranking confederate officer of any unit that day) and the Battle of Gettysburg where they moved forward to absorb Pickets charge and held their positions firmly as well as capturing a Virginia battle flag (still got it too and won't give it back) and in both these battles (although they fought as a unit until 1863) they suffered the some of the highest casualties of the Union.

I would not call this a case of either ineffectiveness or poor discipline, and there are numerous other examples such as the 20th Maine (defending little round top) and the 54th Massachusetts (a black regiment). Thus while some militia units may have been undisciplined or ineffective at this time any units following 1903 (when the US National Guard was organized) were organized much differently and it could be argued that National Guard units do not fit a definition of Militia units.

However I do agree that often soldiers commit atrocities, the example you gave was the Indians (assuming you meant Native Americans) and there is no disputing that atrocities took place (they are extremely well documented). However it is important to understand the historical context in which Indian wars took place, such as the Dakota uprising of 1862, which actually took place during the Civil War.

no to excuse the actions of the Minnesota Militia units but its important to understand that communities had been attacked, realities had been murdered, towns had been burned, and most of the hardened militia units were out of state fighting in the Civil War, thus we have masses of locals enraged and irrational given weapons to defend themselves.

Obviously this is only one case of immigrant/native struggles and only one case of militia usage but the point is valid: when peoples families are murdered and peoples homes are destroyed they are easily moved to commit atrocities against perceived enemies (see Iraq).

On the topic of armies not existing to serve the needs of their members I must disagree, at least when Revolutionary war is concerned. Revolutionary war is a personal war; it is waged for the betterment of the individual and their community. The soldiers in a revolutionary war gain by victory, their interests are served by overthrowing the existing system and establishing one that does serve their interests.

Militia soldiers in the Civil War, although dosed with a large amount of propaganda, signed up because of federal land policy and to oppose the spread of slavery westward. They sought to better themselves and their families, not to loot and kill southerners.

It should also be noted that looting and seizure of goods and services from local populations only became unnecessary for armies operating on foreign soil within the last century. The idea of "living off the land" or rather living off your enemies is a necessity of pragmatism in most situations not an exercise in cruelty.

As far as your (sevrian) response to boards and oversight, I stand by my previously posted position. An army of the people should not need watchdogs to police their activities if they have sufficiently embodied the principles of socialism, they will police themselves and each other.

-R

[Severian]

Bottom line: the nature of war involves hierarchy, subordination, all kinds of things associated with....the state machine.

We can only move fully past that when we've ended the need for war. Through a worldwide communist federation....and "as class antagonism passes away, so too shall national antagonism shall pass away."


Originally posted by NorthStarRepublicML+May 26, 2007 05:11 pm--> (NorthStarRepublicML @ May 26, 2007 05:11 pm) US state militias, such as the previously mentioned 1st Minnesota, [/b]
The First Minnesota was not a militia unit. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Minnesota_Volunteer_Infantry) So their performance at Bull Run cannot be cited in support of militia effectiveness.

Also, you certainly can't refute a point about the average effectiveness of militia by focusing on a single unit, even if it was militia! I'll agree right now that there were occasionally some militia units were effective....as exceptions.

And it's just bizarre that you claim there were no atrocities in fighting Native Americans. I doubt that's true even of the 1862 Dakota Uprising you focus on for some reason, and it's certainly not true more generally in U.S. history.

Wikipedia supports my points about the militias in the U.S. historically. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)#Prior_to_the_Civil_War)

See also General Washington's comments on the role of militias in the war of independence, quoted here (http://www.potowmack.org/mahonch3.html#ch3).
""The dependence which Congress have placed upon (them) . . . I fear will totally ruin our cause. Being subject to no control themselves, they introduce disorder among the troops . . . while change in living brings on sickness; this makes them impatient to get home . . . and introduces abominable desertions."

Any knowledgeable historian is going to say the same.

I might add one new point: militias, in U.S. history, have often been used to suppress slave revolts and workers' strikes.


apathy maybe
It is perfectly lgocal to hypotheses that a centrally controlled 'revolutionary' army, with differential pay scales, saluting and so on (the features of a modern "bourgeois" army)

Way to conflate different things together in a total logical fallacy. What's in dispute here is central control.

So you haul in differential pay scales, saluting, and all the features of a modern bourgeois army. The class privileges that mark it as part of capitalist society. And assume that you must have one if you have the other.

It should be enough to point out the assumption for it to be seen as fallacious. But if anyone needs it, I'll point out the early Red Army had one but, for the most part, not the other.

Heck, the pre-1949 Chinese peasant armies were not big on material privileges, but orders came from the top, no two ways about it.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

couple of things

you said

it's just bizarre that you claim there were no atrocities in fighting Native Americans.

Are you retarded? Did you read what I wrote about atrocities? Obviously not because what I said was

However I do agree that often soldiers commit atrocities, the example you gave was the Indians (assuming you meant Native Americans) and there is no disputing that atrocities took place (they are extremely well documented). However it is important to understand the historical context in which Indian wars took place, such as the Dakota uprising of 1862, which actually took place during the Civil War.

You also said you certainly can't refute a point about the average effectiveness of militia by focusing on a single unit, even if it was militia

Again PLEASE READ what was posted so I don't have to walk you through it like a child over and over again, what I posted was:

Obviously this is only one case of immigrant/native struggles and only one case of militia usage but the point is valid: when peoples families are murdered and peoples homes are destroyed they are easily moved to commit atrocities against perceived enemies (see Iraq).

-R

[NorthStarRepublicML]

Also.... Dude get off the wikipedia and pick up a book ... wikipedia is fun and all but if you want to know about the Minnesota infantry or anything beyond a glassy eyed overview, read BOOKS, in this case, Richard Moe's The Last Full Measure, in which on page 12and 13 explains how the 1st Minnesota was an organized STATE MILITIA transferred to the authority of President Abraham Lincoln by Governor Ramsey.

Any knowledgeable historian is not going to accept a wikipedia citation

-R

[NorthStarRepublicML]

Also because some people are having trouble reading the thread I will just restate that I do not particularly favor militias over federal troops, but I believe both are useful in different instances and neither is any more or less prone to being undisciplined or ineffective based solely upon their status as militia or federal.

-R

PS. sorry for posting in segments like that but the stupid spam filter kept giving me 403 forbidden messages ....

[Bilan]

Severian


Stop and think! If an officer can't be removed by the soldiers, he/she can't be removed at all? Even in bourgeois armies officers are removed by elected political leaders if they act in conflict with the interests of the class they serve.....

Indeed, but this is no justifcation for serving a "term" rather than a "leader" being able to be recalled at any moment that s/he acts in conflict with the revolution, is it?

[Lark]

Whether its defending yourself against terror, crime or counter revolution its a matter of personal responsibility first and foremost.

I dont think that's a value judgement so much as an objective fact, if you've ever been unfortunate enough to be mugged or "happy slapped" you'll appreciate what I'm talking about.

Its not cool the amount of time that socialists spend thinking about revolution as a single event, capitalism didnt develop like that and I'm sure that's why its still here and "socialist experiments" arent, or reproducing the sorts of things they criticise in the world within their own ranks, like militarism.

Homage to Catalonia is a very good book, I'd recommend you read all of Orwell's books, he helped organise the precursor to the Home Guard in the UK along with one of the earliest guerilla warfare proponents Tome Winterhingham, they were called The Local Defense Volunteers and Orwell's war diaries indicate the government took them over and changed them to the home guard because they thought they were threatening, Orwell and Winteringham thought Churchill would sell out the Hitler too and that was part of their motive in setting up the militas.

[Anarchovampire]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 24, 2007 12:39 pm
And, on a similar question, should there only be one revolutionary army? Can there exist militias and a "state" (or similar) army at the same time? Should any such militias be folded into a "Popular Army"?

(And of course, I should have made clear from the beginning, this is assuming some sort of civil war or defensive war.)
What do you think the 2nd Amendment is for, hunting? ;)

[hajduk]

NO.IN THAT CASE IF YOU MAKE THAT KIND OF ARMY YOU WILL TRANSFORM IN THAT WHAT YOU FIGHT AGAINST FOR, BECOUSE ARMY IS CREATED BY CAPITALISTS WHO WHANT TO HAVE FORCE TO KEEP FOR THEM MONEY AND POWER.

[Ol' Dirty]

PR is right. We'd need some sort of context: What is the entity we are fighting? What are our recources? Stuff like that. If you don't explain to me which are we are fighting, there is no way to know what tactics and strategy to use. It isn't possible to fire a .50 cal. round with a 30-06 handgun. Practicaly, talking about them and us without any knowledge about both us and the enemy is "navel gazing" at best.