Progressive instances of militarized culture? [On peasant patrimonialism]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/progressiv...086/index.html

According to some sources, Chavez has attempted to integrate the military with the civilian population as much as possible, to the point of having it take on civilian tasks like food distribution, construction assistance, and transport. He has called this a "civil military union."

Critics have argued, however, that this has militarized civilian society. Placing a plethora of active and/or former military officers in the civil bureaucracy and/or in state enterprises boosts military culture in those institutions. Another angle of criticism is the excessive flexibility in the spectrum that stretches from Marx and Engels' "Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture" and "In future the armies shall be simultaneously labour armies, so that the troops shall not, as formerly, merely consume, but shall produce more than is necessary for their upkeep" - on one end - all the way to the notorious "business empire" of enterprises run by the People's Liberation Army.

Another aspect of militarized culture is the language used in popular discourse. Military language such as "battalions," "platoons," "patrols," and "squadrons" have been used extensively, and in electoral discourse of all places.

So far, this recent example has been a progressive instance of militarized culture, a key aspect of peasant patrimonialism which, in turn, goes back to the ancient social contract exchanging

A) Protection from shepherds and their flocks gone astray, more heavily armed marauders, etc.
B) Execution of populist peasant vengeance against hated landlords, nobles, foreign merchants, etc.

With

A) Absolutism
B) Personality cults regarding the central authority providing the aforementioned protection and execution.

Going back to just after middle antiquity, what were the other instances of militarized culture that were progressive?

Various other points not discussed in the thread above but are related to militarized culture:

- Uniforms for civilians: http://www.undertheredstar.com/nonmvd.htm

Uniforms worn by these non-security ministries reached their zenith during the late 1940's and early 1950's. The USSR had recovered economically somewhat from the war by this time and the Russian pride in their military uniforms of WWII remained strong. So as part of the post-war "Stalinist Reforms", uniforms with military elements (shoulderboards and/or collar tabs) were introduced for virtually all ministries (in fact, I presume all had uniforms but cannot prove it). Due to lack of worker enthusiasm and supply issues, wear of these uniforms was spotty at best - especially among junior personnel, but they did officially exist. However, these military-inspired uniforms were short-lived, being officially abolished following the death of Stalin. However, even after 1954, most ministries retained some "civilian-looking" uniforms - even if these were usually only worn by students at ministerial schools or senior officials on ceremonial occasions.

- Combination of universal military service with more professional perks: http://www.revleft.com/vb/if-canadia...419/index.html

This doesn't mean exactly copying the Soviet sports model, but perhaps only those who extend their military service beyond the universal minimum can, upon completing the extension, qualify for a military-based state athletic development program. Heck, this could apply for getting certain specialized education or obtaining certain well-paid jobs outside sports, too (especially in government).

- Typical US-style honouring of veterans, "supporting our troops," advertising campaigns for individuals extending their military service, etc.

I think that your insistence on a militarized culture, as long as it is progressive, is important no matter what for third-world revolutions.

Anyway, I think a very important part of this, which you brought up, is the US-style of honoring veterans. This creates a very quick and easy way to bring "military glorification" into society. Also, in the US, if a movie wants to use military equipment it has to allow for military oversight of the movie to make sure the movie gives a favorable view of the military (not necessarily "romanticized version of war" but making the soldiers to be "heroes"). Such things as that would also increase military culture, and obviously the TWCS state would take heed to that example.

As for mandatory universal military service, while professional perks may stem this tide, there is also a chance for a backlash and a anti-military counter-culture to form (ex. Vietnam).

Damn, you upped my musings this time with the movies suggestion!

Re. universal military service: That anti-military counter-culture is a possibility, but it never formed in the Soviet Union or in the successor states. Universal military service was a basic assumption of TWCS, but I wanted to make this compatible with the kind of educational and positional perks associated with military regimes and even some non-military ones, too (like enlisting in the US military right from high school, just for post-secondary education on the cheap). Jobs in the military-industrial complex could have as a requirement x-number of years of post-universal minimum military service.

Ironically, here I think a democratized military structure would actually benefit TWCS, instead of control freakery by an officer corps. Military dictatorships have always had conflicts between rising officers transitioning to civilian jobs but wielding enormous influence, on the one hand, and mid-level officer corps personnel still stuck in their positions and seeing their transitioning colleagues doing better. Of course, liberals use this conflict as an excuse to advocate civilian control over the military, even to the point of letting chickenhawks calling the shots. Nobody's ever considered the progressive potential of something akin to a "tenured veterans' dictatorship" ("veterans" in the sense of former soldiers who might not have necessarily fought a war) or at least management of military affairs by tenured veterans.

Re. universal military service: That anti-military counter-culture is a possibility, but it never formed in the Soviet Union or in the successor states. Universal military service was a basic assumption of TWCS, but I wanted to make this compatible with the kind of educational and positional perks associated with military regimes and even some non-military ones, too (like enlisting in the US military right from high school, just for post-secondary education on the cheap). Jobs in the military-industrial complex could have as a requirement x-number of years of post-universal minimum military service.

I agree with you here for third-world countries for sure.

Ironically, here I think a democratized military structure would actually benefit TWCS, instead of control freakery by an officer corps.

Lol, I was just about to bring up this point! What would a "democratized military structure" entail, such as the militia structure that anarchists support or something different? I am not to big of a fan of the structure the anarchists support.

Nobody's ever considered the progressive potential of something akin to a "tenured veterans' dictatorship" ("veterans" in the sense of former soldiers who might not have necessarily fought a war) or at least management of military affairs by tenured veterans.

That would seem to be preferable to "civilian" control over the military (as you brought up).

Well maybe I should have put "democratized military structure" in quotes. At a minimum, perhaps, veterans would have the leading role in military affairs.

Crap, I'm going in circles here!

The philosophical irony in all this is that, despite my earlier inspiration from Aristotle's musings on "monarchy," "democracy," and "aristocracy," and likening Julius Caesar's rule to "monarchy and democracy against aristocracy," a "tenured veterans' dictatorship" would in fact be a form of "aristocracy"

^Yeah, but I do like the idea of having veterans make military decisions (not necessarily things like "to go to war or not" but structure, ranks, training, etc.)

Originally posted by Die Neue Zeit:
Typical US-style honouring of veterans, "supporting our troops," advertising campaigns for individuals extending their military service, etc.

Very interesting. I personally believe infusing such kind of culture is a necessary ingredient to building socialist hegemony. And in your case of "managed democracy", the presidential candidates could debate about whether their party advocates "support our worker army" or "support our army" bumper stickers!

...Or while we are at it, the radical "outsider party" could call for "support our proletarian fighters" Hahaha!

Well, since this is the Third World, it wouldn't exactly be a "workers army" but more like a "people's army" or "popular army." The worker-class movement would build its own logistical independence, though. The "proletarian fighters" would be seen more in the worker militias than in the other militias or in the regular armed forces.

Yes, it is still though a brilliant propaganda model. The thing about propaganda models is, that most people who invest energy in clearing up propaganda models are leftists. These various opposition parties should try to build trans-national contacts with other similar parties. I wonder though how you plan to have the parties financed?

Well, that's the criticism (i.e., criticism) subject of my new thread on Putin.

The "proletarian fighters" would be seen more in the worker militias than in the other militias or in the regular armed forces.

Just to focus on this for a second, would a member of the "proletarian fighters" be able to be apart of the regular militias too or not? Would it be against the militias of the proletarian?

To be clear, the tenured veterans would only be in charge of the military forces, yes? If it were to be that they had influence in the government then the situation would heavily resemble the Ghaddaffi government right after it formed, which made progressive changes but wasn't beholden to the people.

I doubt that is what you are proposing so I'm just trying to clarify.

Definitely there should be a "tenured veterans dictatorship" over military affairs. However, I'm not sure the extension of this to the civilian spheres of government is similar to Libya's example. I had more in mind what Chavez is doing in Venezuela.