Armed resistance does not have to be an army. In Spain during the revolution workers organized militias. They elected their officers who were recallable and organized themselves into columns.
Results 1 to 15 of 15
I know why alot of people on this site are anti-military (see post "repelling a Navy recruiter" etc). I know they have good reasons, but i say te military isn't all bad if you know what i mean, yes it is bad as it enforces and supports a capitalist government in Britain and America, but without an organised, armed resistance, revolutions aren't going to happen, and capitalism will remain dominant. Lets face it, revolution can not come about by talk and agreement. Look at historical examples, South Africa, Sharpeville, which changed the course of the A.N.C. and the P.A.C.'s actions, when they realised that to fight oppression thjey had to use violence. When has revolution been acheived by anything other than violence? Do not mistake me for a warmongerer, as i would like a peaceful revolution more than a violent one, but without an army a country, capitalist or communist is at risk from other countries, this is not paranoia, it is fact, mankind is nasty.
Please post your veiws and comments
The words of the prophets were written on the subway walls.
Armed resistance does not have to be an army. In Spain during the revolution workers organized militias. They elected their officers who were recallable and organized themselves into columns.
Well see, I don't neccesarliy oppose the military, so long as the person who is fighting in it is fighting for a just cause, and the person also believe in that cause. An army, by all means, is needed for the protection of the country. I'm not exactly sure how that system would work within a true communist society( or as close it could get to a true communist society ne ways) but my perception of how an army would work would only be used for means of protection. If we were to declare war, I think it would then have to be decided by the people, not by one sole individual. If anyone has any better solutions I would like to hear it because I havn't really thought of this. How does the military operate in a true communistic society?
I only oppose military advancement when they are misleading their own troops into what they want.
the concept of an army as we know it is incompatible with socialism, anarchism or communism. It is the most obvious example of the capitalist hierarchy: graduates at the top, proletarians at the bottom, and questioning a superior gets you imprisoned.
The militia model is the closest a communist/anarchist movement can come to an army. Of course any military strategist will know that you need a centralized command in the hands of one or two of the most capable tacticians in order to win a battle, and if battles needed to be fought i think the concept of the "exceptional decision maker" role that features in many affinity groups could be extended to this application.
Fortunately, for a revolution you don't really need to fight pitched strategic battles, and the age of a grand marshal looking out over a field and playing chess with his opposite number are going fast.
finally, if we do fight the capitalist powers it will certainly be a guerilla war, in which there is very little contact between individual units and command, so it wouldn't be too much of a problem. A plan of campaign could be voted on at it's inception and coordinated by administrators.
For the revolution, as for the socialist workers'-coordination-pseudo-state after it, democratic and reversible election of officers and leaders would suffice.
What is the point in a military? Why can't the people defend themselves? Why do we need a bunch of overpaid, de-humanized robots to do it for us?
I agree.
"Cocaine's a hell of a drug."-Rick James.
"Those who do not move, do not notice their chains."-Rosa Luxemburg.
Class Against Class|MR|MRZine|H+
If we are to fight through guerrilla warfare in a revolutionary state I can understand. But if we do not have an army and the people defend themselves, how do we implement correct fighting techniques if the people must rely on themselves soley. What I mean is, if a country with a well trained army comes into our territory and means to takeover and the people are to defend themselves, the people may not know the first thing to do.
An army is simply a military force. One can train and gain military experience within a militia as well, after all that is what the Swiss have been doing for some time.
Overpaid?
These guys get shot at every day and they are left with barely enough to retire on.
Si Vis Pacem Parabellum
Lets say we were to take the U.S. over, guerrilla warfare would not work in a lot of areas. People may be able to train themselves in military techniques, but simple militias trained in guerriilla warfare aren't going to work, in my opinion, when tanks(well maybe tanks), missles and airplanes come into play. There would have to be some form of military within the government.
I agree with you on the Swiss since they are actaully an organized band of soldiers.
Via militias, and all manner of guerilla warfare; I don't think it is a manner of who is more skilled (though that is a factor), but more of strategy and effectiveness.
Depends on whom you mean; I mean't people who are actually in the army, not enlisted and drafted soldiers that are in iraq; also not everyone in the army is fighting in the war.
"Cocaine's a hell of a drug."-Rick James.
"Those who do not move, do not notice their chains."-Rosa Luxemburg.
Class Against Class|MR|MRZine|H+
Why can't the militias gain some hardware. It has to do with whether they can seize back the means of production and the resources as well as their training or experience (something which isn't exclusive only to a professional military). If the revolt is truly a mass revolution, the bourgeois forces cannot sustain their military operations as they are clearly in the minority.
Well I was refering to guerrilla warfare, not the actual militia. Fighting under guerrilla warfare would be extremely difficult to acquire planes, tanks and missles. Sooner or later, the element of surprise would be gone and there would be no real use of guerrilla warfare. But yea, I totally agree about taking about the means of production.
The revolution in Spain failed.
And rather than looking at unsuccessful examples of a mobilization of the people into a revolutionary army, let's look at those which were successful. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Russia - The civil war that erupted shortly after the Csar was ousted was largely a conventional army vs. army war. Lenin even went so far as employing Csarist military officers and leaders, who had no real revolutionary ideology but who were "wrapped up" in the conflict and in one way or another found themselves fighting on the right side.
China - The Chinese Red Army was incredibly organized, and although it was a peasant army, it still instituted a system of training and organization that turned the revolutionary feeling of the masses into an effective People's Army that defeated the Nationalists.
Vietnam - Again, like the Chinese model, a highly organized and well-trained guerilla army with clear levels of command, albeit unconventional but still far more than simply groups of peasants coming together to fight.
Cuba - A strange case. 12 raggedy, starving men managed to overthrow a government in 2 years. I don't have much information about the Cuban movement but I do know that it incorporated many ex Cuban military personelle.
Unfortunately seizing the means of production isn't always (infact, is rarely) enough for a Revolutionary Army to become self-sufficient and able to produce advanced weaponry like tanks and anti-aircraft and such. With the overwhelming control capitalism has over the global market and the need for economies to import vast amounts of products to sustain themselves, and the difficulty of developing advanced weapons systems, it is unlikely that any movement would be able to develop anything more than assault rifles and grenades only after the war, when they have total control of the country.
Guerilla tactics, when applied appropriately, have shown their ability to defeat enemy armoured superiority (look at Iraq). Also, look up organizations like the KKK and Michigian Militia. They are self-sustaining private militias (made up of right-wing lunafucks) that train in military tactics, weapons handling, and pretty much everything the real military trains in, all within the confines of the law. It is my opinion that such an operation can be undertaken by People's Militias as well. The Michigan Militia, last time I checked, had 10,000 members. And although ideologically these fucks need to be hanged, drawn and quartered, they have developed a system of developing and training a private Army that any serious Revolutionary needs to take a look at.
IMO, the movement needs comrades with full military training. Do not forget that we are up against the most powerful, well-trained and best-funded militaries in the world. Launching a revolition with nothing more than molotov cocktails, training pistols and hunting rifles isn't going to do much when a 500-tank division comes rolling into your neck of the woods with 10,000 infantry and 100 helicopters in support. We need military comrades, trained and taught the same tactics that our enemies are taught, who can train revolutionary cadres and militias, apply the enemy's tactics and develop a revolutionary army with the skill and knowledge to win battles. We need to be as well-trained and well-equipped as we can possibly be.
Certainly. Off topic, but you do know the importance of being Ernest don't you?
I guess it depends on what you mean by successful. If you mean an army that was organised on conventional lines that was used against dissidents in the USSR, then yes it was successful. It was not really a "revolutionary army", having been formed after the revolution and was then turned into just another state army. The armed wing of the state as it were.
Maybe we have a different meaning of success, or are using it differently. But the while it is true the Chinese army did defeat the nationalists (who had lots of help from the USA), it didn't exactly bring about communism. In fact as in Russia, once the civil war was over, the army was used to bolster state power. Again, no communism in sight.
Yes, they beat the Yanks, yes they were unconventional. But again, no communism (not that this was the real aim, but still).
Well it started with 12 men, and it ended in a state.
My point with the above examples was that armies are fine if you are happy with a conventional state system. But where you are aiming for a class-less (let alone state-less) system, a hierarchical system of organising your army does not really cut it. And I hope we are all aiming for some variant of anarchism as an end result (whether you call it anarchistic or not, communism is).
we need pockets of organized malitias to suprise attack all military bases within the united states. thats where the ammunition, tanks and planes are aren't they. And there are alot more of us than there are them. now you may say that they are our fellow country men, how can we attack them. ask the kids that were shot at kent state during there protest of vietnam. they are bread to kill those who oppose them, do u think they will think twice to shoot at us, then why should we. people are going to die, places will be destroyed. thats the cost of war. it will take lives, but those lives will be lost so that millions more worldwide won't have to be. as long as the american government has the arms, and we have only our voices, they will never obey us, never listen to us. we must take action now before it's to late, be for this capitalist/fascist government becomes to powerful and a revolution is less likely to succeed.
[QUOTE]it is better to die fighting, than is it to live on your knees-CHE
