The Military

[kromando33]

The premise is simple, but as an example some year or so Hugo Chavez was talking up the idea of a 'popular mass army' to his Generals, and at the same time talked up the 'professionalization' of the military, and his top General told him this was contradictory, that you can't at the one time have a popular army based upon mass mobilization of the population, and at the same time have a full-time professional soldiery.

This got me thinking, what is the role of the 'military' in socialism? Is the entire concept and 'form' of the modern military a 'bourgeois' concept and thus a bourgeois institution? And is the idea of a military hierarchy 'seperated' from the citizenry anti-Marxist in itself? Does having soldiers separated and isolated from the populace they serve make them desensitized, and thus develop their own 'interests' different from those of the proletariat under socialism. I personally think the answer for this comes primarily from having such an institution primarily under the control of the proletariat. From Africa to South America, modern and recent history is littered with examples of the military becoming a brutal tool in the exercise of the bourgeois dictatorship, and in active repression of the proletariat, where once a CEO from the United Fruit Company could call in a battalion of marines to put down a picket, the local elites in South America themselves have built their own armies. Surely any socialist state should stay clear of a desensitized mercenary-like army indifferent to killing it's own people.

The Military Class?

I myself am very much against the tendency in Trotskyist circles of calling certain groups 'classes' for opportunistic reasons. I think whether they be bureucratic, artisan or the like - that 'stratas' will exist in socialism (although they are a contradiction) because in economic socialism everyone cannot do the same job, coordination of the working class requires different stratas of labor organization. I do however think that the military represents a unique case, and although I don't think a successful argument could be made that the military hierarchy itself represents a class, that it certainly could be an attachment of the bourgeois state. Certainly the 'military industrial complex' or some would even call 'war economy', is a vast market for bourgeois states, for although the bourgeois actively repress the proletariat they also fight amongst themselves for jingoistic reasons of resources and new markets.

The 'Smash and Grab' Economy

As many of you may have read, Lenin's famous work on Imperialism was a founding document for us socialists, and far from being a opportunistic word 'imperialism' means for us an adequate description of the system of transnational capital. The premise is simple, capitalism is an economy trapped in a vicious cycle of constant uncontrollable growth, and must constantly expand into new countries and exploit new resources, human and otherwise, to survive. Lenin posited 'fascism' as 'capitalism in decay', that is was the last reactionary attempt of capital to stave off it's own decline. The 'smash and grab' economy of fascism should simply be invading other countries, ruining the country in so doing, and then opening new markets for 'reconstruction' which is fact was wholesale plunder.

This is of course fundamentally important to the concept of militarism in fascism, and indeed of 'national security' in modern times, the military would be the vanguard for capitalist expansion.

The Military 'as the People'

Fundamentally then, the conclusion is that a popular mass army is what is needed to avoid the GDP-consuming monster of capitalist militaries, this is fundamentally correct because having the proletariat themselves as the military makes the 'different interests'.

[Comrade Rage]

The military should definitely exist under socialism.

[kromando33]

I agree comrade, but my point is that it shouldn't exist as the profit-mongering fascist institution that it does under bourgeois, the socialist concept of 'the military' should be entirely Marxist concept in theory and practise, that is it shouldn't exist as a tool of foreign aggression and plunder, but as a tool for upholding the dictatorship of the proletariat and defending it on a purely domestic basis, not like the Cuban or Krushevite Soviet armies which were used for fascist imperialism.

[piet11111]

i believe that a small professional army is required alongside a mass poeple's army simply because of the highly specialised disciplines like pilots and artillery/anti air defenses.

but i would not like to have a permanent officer "class" in the armed forces.
i think these officers should be elected from the poeple's army ranks.

[Dros]

I agree that there needs to be an army during the socialist phase. I would also agree that there should be a popular army (like a reserve) and a professional army. I don't however believe that officers should be elected. Militaries require firm hierarchy in order to function effectively and I think democracy in the military would subvert its opperational effectiveness. Those who appoint the officers should be elected.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

I agree that there needs to be an army during the socialist phase. I would also agree that there should be a popular army (like a reserve) and a professional army. I don't however believe that officers should be elected. Militaries require firm hierarchy in order to function effectively and I think democracy in the military would subvert its opperational effectiveness. Those who appoint the officers should be elected.

There is a best-of-both-worlds solution to the officer issue:

1. Officers should train with the enlisted, preferably living in the same quarters as well.

2. Criticism sessions. I forget the Vietnamese term for it, but they would have sessions between battles(and you could do it in training) where people would criticize themselves and each other on a wide variety of isssues. Nobody was above complaint, everyone held accountable. This is one reason why the VC/NVA was able to defeat the French and US, because they were able to adapt and learn at a very quick rate.

3. Women in the military. The "defend the women" idea has only worked so long as the nation in question wins the war. When they lose, the women who have been given no stake in the nation, no means to defend it, are often the prize of the occupiers(see Germany and Japan after WWII for an example of this). Give a girl a gun and you give her a stake in the nations future. They should be in combat positions in the local militias and there should be special combat units in the army with women. These units should train together often so as to avoid stratification. Yes, sexual relationships will develop, but this is far more desirable than ever-horny guys running around towns. I for one would think the relationship between a man and an assertive well-trained military woman would be far more healthy and have a great deal of mutual respect.

4. Also related to the third point is the basing issue. To get more experience in their nation, troops should have to travel to distant locations from time to time, for various reasons(e.g. training or special projects). But other than this, bases and postings should be coordinated so that even the active military personnel(not just reservists or militia) can live roughly in their home area. This puts them close to their family and home town, and gives them a greater incentive to fight. Also, in conjunction with 3, it will help stamp out any forms of prostitution that may spring up(don't think this couldn't happen in a socialist country in the initial period of transition).

[MarxSchmarx]

The idea of a professional military is apothetical to socialism. Everyone should defend the class-less society, not just the young and the able-bodied.


Militaries require firm hierarchy in order to function effectively and I thinkdemocracy in the military would subvert its opperational effectiveness. Those who appoint the officers should be elected.This is asking for the rudiments of a class organization. Either everyone will defend socialism or no one will.


Socialism doesn't require a bureaucracy to implement, military or civil. A professional military no longer puts the people in charge of their future destiny, just as a professional bureaucracy deprives people of their own initiatives.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

The idea of a professional military is apothetical to socialism. Everyone should defend the class-less society, not just the young and the able-bodied.

This is asking for the rudiments of a class organization. Either everyone will defend socialism or no one will.


This is the kind of all or nothing thinking that demonstrates why left Communism is really just a mask for not fighting the old system regardless of the claims of its adherents.

A form of professional military is necessary in order to exploit modern military technology to its fullest potential. You can be damn sure the enemies of the socialist state will be doing the same. Do you really think communes can have their own airstrips? Armored divisions?

In order to learn to use these weapons effectively, you need people who will be in the service for a good amount of time, at least four years for enlisted personnel. NCOs are required to bring experience into the field.

Have the citizen militias of course, but if you only have that then military planning and strategy would be limited in terms of level. That is to say with militias the scope of capability would vary too much by region, and you would probably only be able to plan for the campaign or operational level rather than strategic.

[The Douche]

Who will give the training? What about things like submarines, aircraft carriers, missile specialists, pilots?

I would say that there should be some sort of standing force similar the US's Army Special Forces (aka green berets). They specialise in training foreign militaries in counter insurgency and they do direct action missions. They don't train like drill sergeants they teach the skills. We should have that in existence to teach the people. And all the jobs which require constant work in order to be proficient, or those which must be manned all the time in order to defend the revolution should work on some sort of rotating basis. (i.e. a pilot stays on base for 6 months after his training then goes home for a year, then 6 months etc)

[MarxSchmarx]

A form of professional military is necessary in order to exploit modern military technology to its fullest potential. You can be damn sure the enemies of the socialist state will be doing the same. Do you really think communes can have their own airstrips? Armored divisions?

If we really wanted to "exploit modern military technology to its fullest potential" we won't even talk about a military. Just make sure a few nukes (or other wmds) are in the right hands. Then all your officer corps and strategists and trained enlistees will be mute.

Of course this is just fantasy. But so is the idea that a "professional" military without deep and massive popular support can defeat our enemies. The technologically backward military strategies, like the guerrilla groups in China or Vietnam, succeeded not because they "made the best use of available technology" or had a nomenclatura of officers. They succeeded because ordinary people invested enough in the struggle to oppose better-armed, better-trained professional warriors.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

If we really wanted to "exploit modern military technology to its fullest potential" we won't even talk about a military. Just make sure a few nukes (or other wmds) are in the right hands. Then all your officer corps and strategists and trained enlistees will be mute.

Of course this is just fantasy. But so is the idea that a "professional" military without deep and massive popular support can defeat our enemies. The technologically backward military strategies, like the guerrilla groups in China or Vietnam, succeeded not because they "made the best use of available technology" or had a nomenclatura of officers. They succeeded because ordinary people invested enough in the struggle to oppose better-armed, better-trained professional warriors.

Alas, all the world is not covered in dense, difficult terrain like in Vietnam. Where did I EVER suggest that the military should not have direct links to the masses? That is the whole point of a conscript army, that works closely with the people's militias, where soldiers are based in their home districts for the most part, where they can spend time doing social projects in their communities, where men and women serve together, where officers live with the enlisted, and where regular training sessions and AAR sessions are conducted wherein the officers are held accountable to criticism. Did you even READ my post?

[MarxSchmarx]

Alas, all the world is not covered in dense, difficult terrain like in Vietnam.

Even in relatively less-hostile terrain, like the midwest Canada and the U$, effectively guerrilla wars were carried out.



Where did I EVER suggest that the military should not have direct links to the masses?

No one ever said you did. My critique was aimed at your claim that a socialist society can only be defended by a professional bureaucracy. A professional military invariably develops its own interests apart from the interests of the revolutionary movement.


That is the whole point of a conscript army, that works closely with the people's militias, where soldiers are based in their home districts for the most part, where they can spend time doing social projects in their communities, where men and women serve together, where officers live with the enlisted, and where regular training sessions and AAR sessions are conducted wherein the officers are held accountable to criticism.

The whole point of a conscript army is to make the needs and wants of the people subservient to the desires of the bureaucracy. At best, conscription helps mitigate class distinctions. But the fact that you have to put in so many caveats for "conscription" that is "closer to the people" shows how pointless this idea is. If people are committed to socialism, we won't need conscription.


Did you even READ my post?

Yes.

And for all the claims that a professional officer corp and strategically brilliant tacticians will save socialism, let the record show that from Weimar/Nazi Germany to the U$A to Japan to the USSR, a professional military with supposedly highly developed expertise, has repeatedly gotten its ass whipped. This is even more true of second-rate powers like Columbia and Pakistan. What makes you think that a professional military per se gives us any advantage, or that our situation will somehow be historically different from the cappies problems?

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Even in relatively less-hostile terrain, like the midwest Canada and the U$, effectively guerrilla wars were carried out.

Yes in times of flintlock muskets, and later percussion rifles and trap-door single-shot weapons.




No one ever said you did. My critique was aimed at your claim that a socialist society can only be defended by a professional bureaucracy. A professional military invariably develops its own interests apart from the interests of the revolutionary movement.

Professional military means there are people in it whose jobs are to be in the military, to develop strategy, etc.




The whole point of a conscript army is to make the needs and wants of the people subservient to the desires of the bureaucracy. At best, conscription helps mitigate class distinctions. But the fact that you have to put in so many caveats for "conscription" that is "closer to the people" shows how pointless this idea is. If people are committed to socialism, we won't need conscription.

No the point of a conscript army is that if you want this democracy, if you want communism, you need to fight for it. Freedom comes with responsibility.






And for all the claims that a professional officer corp and strategically brilliant tacticians will save socialism, let the record show that from Weimar/Nazi Germany to the U$A to Japan to the USSR, a professional military with supposedly highly developed expertise, has repeatedly gotten its ass whipped. This is even more true of second-rate powers like Columbia and Pakistan. What makes you think that a professional military per se gives us any advantage, or that our situation will somehow be historically different from the cappies problems?


This is an absurdly reductionist point of view that ignores the key factors leading to the defeats to which you refer. Not to mention that the only alternative you have mentioned, Vietnam, had officers.