Universal conscription

[Unicorn]

Is it appropriate to have universal conscription to defend the achievements of socialism from imperialist aggression?

IMO, there should be universal conscription but also an alternative like the German "Zivildienst" (civilian service) for those whose have conscientious objections to military service. Objecting to the civilian service should be a criminal offense because the state does not really have another way to ensure that people will serve.

[RedAnarchist]

What happens to people who aren't able to for some reason?

[Unicorn]

What happens to people who aren't able to for some reason?
They are relieved from military service after doctor's examination.

[apathy maybe]

What happens to those people who object to any conscription for a particular reason, thus refuse to fight, or to do your crappy civilian jobs?

Take me for example, fuck fighting in your foreign wars, oh and fuck fighting your fires too (considering I lit them... ;)).

Oh wait, you just said it, criminal offence. Well, sign me up, I'm a natural born criminal and proud. (Must sig that...)

So yeah, I'm an anarchist, I don't believe in your state.

[Os Cangaceiros]

No.

I am not the state's property.

[Unicorn]

What happens to those people who object to any conscription for a particular reason, thus refuse to fight, or to do your crappy civilian jobs?

Take me for example, fuck fighting in your foreign wars, oh and fuck fighting your fires too (considering I lit them... ;)).

Oh wait, you just said it, criminal offence. Well, sign me up, I'm a natural born criminal and proud. (Must sig that...)

So yeah, I'm an anarchist, I don't believe in your state.
Would you have fought against Hitler in WWII?

[AGITprop]

A worker's militia is essential, and must be completely voluntary. We cannot force the revolution. If the consciousness is there, people will understand the need to join a militia and fight. If they aren't willing to make this sacrifice, there is no revolution. We don't force anyone to do anything. The workers must decide.

[RedAnarchist]

Would you have fought against Hitler in WWII?

You sound like a politician. "Would you have fought the evil that threatens our country?". Saying things like that is in the same sort of area as saying "If you don't like this country, leave it", or "You either with us or against us".

[Dros]

This thread proves that after the revolution, Communists will have to (sadly) fight the anarchists in order to safe guard the interests of the working class.

[AGITprop]

This thread proves that after the revolution, Communists will have to (sadly) fight the anarchists in order to safe guard the interests of the working class.

Perhaps. Since all decisions will be democratic ones, the majority will rule. Anarchists find this authoritarian. They will however have the right to vote, the right to abstain and the right to organize against the state. The moment their actions infringe on the liberties of others though, we will have no choice but to decide whether the workers' militias will organize to crush these movements.

As I mentioned earlier though, no one is forced to fight. The anarchists abstain if they wish, and I am quite sure some will do so, just out of principle and spite.

[spartan]

"The most armed are the most free" so yeah if we need to defend ourselves from outside aggression people will have to be conscripted into the military.

Like it not but warfare has changed so much from a few decades ago that a few bandanna wearing Che Guevara wannabes with outdated AK-47's arent going to change a damn thing except that there lives will soon be over.

As revolutionaries we will be coming up against the best trained armies fighting with the best weapons that money can buy and who will be fighting with the newest methods available to them (Such as electronic warfare and space satellites) which would crush any guerrilla army easily.

I am sorry to say but people refusing to defend their future Socialist state (And i mean Socialist not some Stalinist draconian nightmare) are quite simply allowing Socialism to be beaten by Capitalism which makes them reactionaries.

I mean where the fuck is the logic in not defending something that you won which is now under attack by the people you won it from?

[Os Cangaceiros]

As revolutionaries we will be coming up against the best trained armies fighting with the best weapons that money can buy and who will be fighting with the newest methods available to them (Such as electronic warfare and space satellites) which would crush any guerrilla army easily.

Yeah. Because we've all seen how well technology has subdued Iraq. Technology wielded by the most powerful military on the planet, I might add.

The bottom line is that I'm not going to embrace "freedom at bayonnet point"; it doesn't matter if it's cloaked in a red flag or not.

[AGITprop]

"The most armed are the most free" so yeah if we need to defend ourselves from outside aggression people will have to be conscripted into the military. No one will be forced to do anything, grow up. If people want the revolution they will fight. If their will is not there, there is no revolution.


Like it not but warfare has changed so much from a few decades ago that a few bandanna wearing Che Guevara wannabes with outdated AK-47's arent going to change a damn thing except that there lives will soon be over.

As revolutionaries we will be coming up against the best trained armies fighting with the best weapons that money can buy and who will be fighting with the newest methods available to them (Such as electronic warfare and space satellites) which would crush any guerrilla army easily.
Why does FARC still exist? Why is the war in Afghanistan and Iraq still ongoing? How does the state's army fight a force it cannot see?

Also, the AK-47 is still the superior weapon, only being matched now by new German modular rifles, extremely well-made and very versatile.


I am sorry to say but people refusing to defend their future Socialist state (And i mean Socialist not some Stalinist draconian nightmare) are quite simply allowing Socialism to be beaten by Capitalism which makes them reactionaries. This is exactly what I just said in my last post. If no one is wiling to defend the revolution, there will be none, but it is not our line to force anyone to do so.



I mean where the fuck is the logic in not defending something that you won which is now under attack by the people you won it from? This is why it is important to win over workers with the best possible arguments. This is why having a good analysis of the corruption of capitalism is paramount. Rhetoric and knowledge is our greatest weapon.

[TheDifferenceEngine]

Yeah. Because we've all seen how well technology has subdued Iraq. Technology wielded by the most powerful military on the planet, I might add.

Iraq IS subdued, oil is securely making it's way westward and the imperialists have a staging post for their attack on Iran.

Mission A-fuckin-complished.

What? you actually thought the US high command ever gave a damn about Iraq as a nation?

The bottom line is that I'm not going to embrace "freedom at bayonnet point"; it doesn't matter if it's cloaked in a red flag or not.

"Freedom comes from the barrel of a gun"

[Red_or_Dead]

If the conscripted armed force is to be used only for the defense of the state after the revolution, I dont see a problem.




You sound like a politician. "Would you have fought the evil that threatens our country?". Saying things like that is in the same sort of area as saying "If you don't like this country, leave it", or "You either with us or against us".

Replace the "evil" with "reactionaries" and "our country" with "the revolution" (or something along that line) and you get something that a ploitician would say, but it would also be true.


Saying things like that is in the same sort of area as saying "If you don't like this country, leave it", or "You either with us or against us".

Crap.

[AGITprop]

If the conscripted armed force is to be used only for the defense of the state after the revolution, I dont see a problem.


I see a huge problem. It infringes on the liberties of others. I will not defend a system that forces people to go die. If people accept that the revolution must be defended, they will fight, if not, socialism is lost, but forcing people is not the way to maintain socialism. This is why militias must be completely voluntary and democratically controlled and must consist of workers and not be a separate body from the people, as an armed body, independent of the masses can be used against the masses.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yeah. Because we've all seen how well technology has subdued Iraq. Technology wielded by the most powerful military on the planet, I might add.

Iraq IS subdued, oil is securely making it's way westward and the imperialists have a staging post for their attack on Iran.

Mission A-fuckin-complished.

What? you actually thought the US high command ever gave a damn about Iraq as a nation?

No, I don't think that the US cares about Iraq.

However, the insurgency still presents a problem; and the US does care about the insurgency. Political capital is being lost in a very, very bad way. In order to gain a solid foothold in the region, the United States is going to have to wipe out the insurgency.



"Freedom comes from the barrel of a gun"

Oh, yeah! I love Maoist jingoism! Give me more!

[Red_or_Dead]

I see a huge problem. It infringes on the liberties of others. I will not defend a system that forces people to go die.

Technicaly, its whoever attacks us that forces us to die. And of course it infringes on liberties of others. Communism infringes on the liberty of an individual to own means of production. Bad? No. Same here. If we are to live in a socialist society, some casualties are inevitable.


If people accept that the revolution must be defended, they will fight, if not, socialism is lost, but forcing people is not the way to maintain socialism.

Sadly, it is. You think that capitalists will just sit by and let us take everything from them? They wont, and they will organize and fight us with everything they got. Unfortunately for us, they have a lot.


This is why militias must be completely voluntary and democratically controlled and must consist of workers and not be a separate body from the people, as an armed body, independent of the masses can be used against the masses.

Democracy doesnt have a place in an army that seeks to be efficient and succesfull. As for the alienation from the masses, conscription will abolish it.

[AGITprop]

Technicaly, its whoever attacks us that forces us to die. And of course it infringes on liberties of others. Communism infringes on the liberty of an individual to own means of production. Bad? No. Same here. If we are to live in a socialist society, some casualties are inevitable. People will attack us if they want something from us. If we give it to them, they won't kill us. If we fight back, they will. It's a choice the people have to make; will they fight or not to defend their rights.

An individual owning the means of production is not a liberty, it is theft, as it tasks away the opportunity for another to it. Are you even a communist?


Sadly, it is. You think that capitalists will just sit by and let us take everything from them? They wont, and they will organize and fight us with everything they got. Unfortunately for us, they have a lot. Are you serious? You just enlightened me! Don; be ridiculous, no one is denying this. AS I said ten times before, it is up to the workers to decide whether or not they will fight to protect their gains.




Democracy doesnt have a place in an army that seeks to be efficient and succesfull. As for the alienation from the masses, conscription will abolish it. How does conscription abolish alienation from the masses. What it does is alienate the masses from the state.

And a workers' militia has no reason to not be democratic. Soldiers will elect their officers and generals according to who they believe can lead them est in battle. People will democratically elect who wil have authority over them, and most importantly will be able to democratically recall anyone they see unfit.

[Os Cangaceiros]

God damn, people, is this so hard to understand?

Do you really think that, if the large majority of a nation wants a socialist society, people aren't going to fight regardless of conscription? In all likelyhood, you'd have the same situation that you had in regards to recruitment that occured at the beginning of World War One in France and Britain: recruitment offices flooded to the extent that military recruiters couldn't keep up with new applicants. If people aren't willing to fight to be free, than they don't deserve freedom to begin with.

Besides, if conscription is going to be used in this hypothetical "national emergency", what's going to stop it from being used in questionable circumstances? Whats going to stop the state from conscripting whenever they feel like it? The answer is, of course, nothing.

[AGITprop]

than they don't deserve freedom to begin with.


I disagree, but will still stand by the fact that if they do not fight they cannot hold their freedom.

[Unicorn]

I see a huge problem. It infringes on the liberties of others. I will not defend a system that forces people to go die. If people accept that the revolution must be defended, they will fight, if not, socialism is lost, but forcing people is not the way to maintain socialism. This is why militias must be completely voluntary and democratically controlled and must consist of workers and not be a separate body from the people, as an armed body, independent of the masses can be used against the masses.
Any person drafted to the Red Army in 1941 was likely killed by the fearsome Nazi war machine. If conscription was voluntary in the USSR at least 20% of the men would choose to evade it because people commonly want to live rather than die even for a great cause. That would mean defeat.

Also, if there is no peace-time conscription workers will lack military training and be defeated.

As you are a Trotskyist you should know that the Trotskyist LRP supports draft even in capitalist countries because workers need military training.
http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/33cLRPWords.html

[Niccolò Rossi]

Is it appropriate to have universal conscription to defend the achievements of socialism from imperialist aggression?

No, I believe not. The standing army is an element of the bourgeois state apparatus. The working class can not, the in the words of Marx, "simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes."

This is also the case with conscription. Conscription allows the ruling class organised as the state to force the working class, under penalty, to fight it's wars and defend their own class enemies and their organisation as the state.

Conscription is a tool of the bourgeois and their state. The working class must smash the bourgeois state and it's institutions of violent class supremacy, the proletarian state can not utilise conscription for its own ends. The military as we now know it must be destroyed in favour of a people's militia, voluntary and democratic.

Some poster's above and the OP have advocated conscription for the defence of the newly formed workers state against foreign military aggression and civil war. I'm afraid I disagree. Military aggression, which may inevitably follow the proletarian revolution, must be fought off by the actions of the workers themselves in defence of their achievements as a class, not out of penalty of imprisonment which something markedly bourgeois. If the working people are not willing to defend their revolution, I say let it fall!

[Red_or_Dead]

People will attack us if they want something from us. If we give it to them, they won't kill us. If we fight back, they will. It's a choice the people have to make; will they fight or not to defend their rights.



Some people would without a doubt fight volountarily, but the question is how much people would that be? 50%? 30%? We have to consider that not all of those who support the revolution would be willing to fight in an event of a foreign military intervention.


How does conscription abolish alienation from the masses.

Instead of having a profesionalized force of mercenaries (like it is very common in bourgeois states), we would have an army composed nearly entirely of the working class. Of course, some level of profesionalization (like jet fighter pilots, generals ect.) is necesary, but the backbone of such an army would be made up of working class people.


And a workers' militia has no reason to not be democratic. Soldiers will elect their officers and generals according to who they believe can lead them est in battle. People will democratically elect who wil have authority over them, and most importantly will be able to democratically recall anyone they see unfit.

The question is, are people who are not military experts fit do decide who will lead them in an armed conflict? I say we let the experts take care of it. Its the only way that an army of a socialist state can stand up to other armies that may threaten it.



Do you really think that, if the large majority of a nation wants a socialist society, people aren't going to fight regardless of conscription?

People have different opinions on it. Some would, some would not. If there are not enough of those that are willing to fight volountarily, then draft is the only solution that I can see.


In all likelyhood, you'd have the same situation that you had in regards to recruitment that occured at the beginning of World War One in France and Britain: recruitment offices flooded to the extent that military recruiters couldn't keep up with new applicants.

It may be likely, but it isnt sure. Safeguards must exist if there isnt enough volounteers.


Besides, if conscription is going to be used in this hypothetical "national emergency", what's going to stop it from being used in questionable circumstances? Whats going to stop the state from conscripting whenever they feel like it? The answer is, of course, nothing.

Democratic vote? Not to be confused with my statement that democracy has no place in the army, but it has a place in the deciding on how the army should be used.


If people aren't willing to fight to be free, than they don't deserve freedom to begin with.


In that case, why bother with having a revolution at all?

[AGITprop]

Also, if there is no peace-time conscription workers will lack military training and be defeated.

As you are a Trotskyist you should know that the Trotskyist LRP supports draft even in capitalist countries because workers need military training.
http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/33cLRPWords.html (http://home.flash.net/%7Ecomvoice/33cLRPWords.html)

You don't need conscription to give workers military training. Next time, pleas read all my posts before giving yourself an ego boost by pretending to have refuted my arguments.

What I said was you have voluntary militias. Where workers can, in their spare time train to be able to defend their communities in times of conflict.
These militias must be within the proletariat and not separate of it.

[AGITprop]

Some people would without a doubt fight volountarily, but the question is how much people would that be? 50%? 30%? We have to consider that not all of those who support the revolution would be willing to fight in an event of a foreign military intervention.
If the majority does not support the revolution, there i no revolution for the last god-damned time. The state has no power over the people. I don't kno what bureaucratic wet-dream you have in your head abut socialism. N one is to be forced to do anything.



Instead of having a profesionalized force of mercenaries (like it is very common in bourgeois states), we would have an army composed nearly entirely of the working class. Of course, some level of profesionalization (like jet fighter pilots, generals ect.) is necesary, but the backbone of such an army would be made up of working class people. Yes? Voluntary workers militias.




The question is, are people who are not military experts fit do decide who will lead them in an armed conflict? I say we let the experts take care of it. Its the only way that an army of a socialist state can stand up to other armies that may threaten it.
Well, where are these experts going to come from? Are we going to give limitless power to the old military officials from the bourgeois state's army. I think not. They will be one of the first lined up and shot.





People have different opinions on it. Some would, some would not. If there are not enough of those that are willing to fight volountarily, then draft is the only solution that I can see.
It may be likely, but it isnt sure. Safeguards must exist if there isnt enough volounteers.And who are you to decide this? The system is democratic. If worker's decide to vote to create a draft, then they might as well volunteer.

You cannot force anyone to go to war. If w do, it will create internal conflict which we cannot have have during war time.




[/quote] In that case, why bother with having a revolution at all?[quote=Red_or_Dead;1115747]Again, I question whether or not you understand communism. There will only be a revolution if there is majority support for it. If this exists, people who fought during the revolution will most likely be ready to defend their gains after the revolution.

[Red_or_Dead]

If this exists, people who fought during the revolution will most likely be ready to defend their gains after the revolution.

Again, its down to "most likely". What if they dont?


If the majority does not support the revolution, there i no revolution for the last god-damned time. The state has no power over the people. I don't kno what bureaucratic wet-dream you have in your head abut socialism. N one is to be forced to do anything.


Im not talking about the revolution. The question is: are people willing to fight volountarily after the revolution? Suppose that there is a revolution in a certain country, which is succesfull. A few months, maybe a year later the country is under attack by a bourgeois country. What if those people who supported the revolution refuse to volounteer to fight the foreign invasion?


Well, where are these experts going to come from? Are we going to give limitless power to the old military officials from the bourgeois state's army. I think not. They will be one of the first lined up and shot.


Why not? Those officials are not above the working class. They only command the military (which is composed in wast majority by the working class). They themselves are subjected to the dictatoship of the proletariat.


And who are you to decide this? The system is democratic. If worker's decide to vote to create a draft, then they might as well volunteer.

How many % of the workers must vote for it? The majority? In that case, those who vote against and lose the vote, would still have to fight.

[AGITprop]

Again, its down to "most likely". What if they dont? THEN THEY DON'T, GET IT THROUGH YOUR SKULL. You have no say in what the masses want.




Im not talking about the revolution. The question is: are people willing to fight volountarily after the revolution? Suppose that there is a revolution in a certain country, which is succesfull. A few months, maybe a year later the country is under attack by a bourgeois country. What if those people who supported the revolution refuse to volounteer to fight the foreign invasion? Then we get invaded and the revolution was in vain. Deal with it. People will decide what they want. And stop giving me idealist reponses such as " what if they dont?" No one fights for something and then gives it up. If they do socialism is lost. Grow up. Just because you are a so called communist, gives you no authority over what people should do. You can put out your ideas, but that is the end of it. Democracy will decide.



How many % of the workers must vote for it? The majority? In that case, those who vote against and lose the vote, would still have to fight. That is a delicate question. It is an issue of the system. The democracy of society would not be centralized, meaning that everyone doesn't have to listen to the majority and can criticize them. My answer is no, they still don't have to fight.

[Red_or_Dead]

Then we get invaded and the revolution was in vain. Deal with it.

Im dealing with it quite nicely.


And stop giving me idealist reponses such as " what if they dont?" No one fights for something and then gives it up.

How is that idealist?

And some people do give up.


Just because you are a so called communist, gives you no authority over what people should do.

Im not seeking any authority.


You can put out your ideas, but that is the end of it.

Exactly what Im doing.


Democracy will decide.


There first has to be a democracy.


That is a delicate question. It is an issue of the system. The democracy of society would not be centralized, meaning that everyone doesn't have to listen to the majority and can criticize them. My answer is no, they still don't have to fight.

With that I can agree.

[AGITprop]

Excellent? Is this discussion over?
It was a pleasure.

[Red_or_Dead]

Excellent? Is this discussion over?
It was a pleasure.

I guess so.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'll make my own decision about whether or not this finger pulls a trigger - and at whom, thank you very much.

[AGITprop]

I'll make my own decision about whether or not this finger pulls a trigger - and at whom, thank you very much.

I could not agree more.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

An idea occurs... Perhaps instead of having a standing army of volunteers and/or conscripts, or a traditional militia, why not have cadres of voluntary reservists, who attend regular training to keep their skills sharp, and get called up when needed? One could have two main type of cadres: "Skilled" cadres are workers with skills and proficiencies directly relevant to military work, and get training designed to help them to apply their skills in military situations, while "unskilled" cadres (which are likely to be in the majority) get simpler infantry training designed to make them effective grunts. Ranks and commands should ideally be distributed according to merit - initial training sessions which all cadres both skilled and unskilled go through can have additional tests and exercises designed to sift through reservists and find those most skilled at battlefield command and making executive decision on the spot (and most likely with only limited information at hand), which is typically where the more democratic approaches fall down - they may be more fair and inclusive, but they take time, something which is limited on a battlefield or in a campaign.

That's a basic idea - it could be refined by the addition of regular tests and exercise to determine if a military officer is still competent for command, and so on and so forth.

As for specialisations, it may or may not be necessary to maintain a small corps of voluntary military professionals, most likely higher-level battlefield commanders, but also possibly fighter jet pilots and such if the general situation demands it.

[Unicorn]

Well, where are these experts going to come from? Are we going to give limitless power to the old military officials from the bourgeois state's army. I think not. They will be one of the first lined up and shot.
Trotsky used former officers of Tsar's army extensively as experts although they were not communists.