Re: [Marxism] Role of the Army
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == We should not forget how this discussion started-- which was about discrimination in the military services and not the role of the army. I don't think there is any disagreement about the role of the army as an institution. I don't think that I disagree with Dan's characterization of the army as an enemy of the people. Certainly, as an institution, that is the military's role The issue of contention was how best to crack the cohesiveness, the discipline that the military must have to function in that role. The suggestions by Peggy, IMO, are mistaken not because they are so utopian, but rather because they're so Proudhonian-- that old we want the capital, but without the capitalists idea. Here we want the military, without the miliarists-- we want the military to play a different role, to change its spots. That's not going to happen, and agitating for a million recruit increase is not going to crack that discipline.First off, we don't advocate the military as a way to reduce unemployment-- that's the military's line. We don't advocate it because that doesn't attack the class structure within the military, separate the ranks from the officer corps. We don't advocate it because it's all too close to the war is good for business, and what's good for business is good for labor argument. As for the humanitarian capacity of the armed forces, I'd like to point out the great results of the humanitarian actions of the US military in taking logistical command of the arrival and distribution of relief supplies, personnel, and efforts after the earthquake in Haiti-- particularly the redirecting away from Haiti of the shipments to support the MSF doctors; the delay in accepting the rescue teams from Iceland; the rejection of the specially trained and organized search and rescue teams from Houston, Texas... etc. etc. etc. And it's my personal opinion that there are no such things as grassroots teabaggers. This is not a populist movement of poor and lower middle class working and shopkeeper types. The teabaggers are well-to-do, materially comfortable and exactly the type of people who invest in corporations like Halliburton without blinking an eye about the abuse of military contracts, the overcharging, double-billing, etc. etc. - Original Message - From: Peggy Dobbins pegdobb...@gmail.com To: sartes...@earthlink.net Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] role of the army
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == I've cut and pasted Artesian's comments and reply in the other font Artesian wrote: We should not forget how this discussion started-- which was about discrimination in the military services and not the role of the army. Peg:You are right to bring us back to how the discussion started. Discrimination against those who wish to be honest about their sexual preference should be stopped. I would like to see an effort to bridge constituencies, those who support abolition of dont ask dont tell and those who support abolition of discrimination against qny American who wants to join the army and is not allowed to because of something they have done in the past, because they are too old, or can't pass one of the mental or physical tests. If you have ever known a kid busted for getting stoned who missed graduation because he was in jail, and who could not get a job at Walmart because of his record, and he and his mother wept with joy when you told them the DA said to tell him to go to the recruiting office and if they called he'd say his record was clean, then maybe you wouldn't, but I did, change my mind about absolutely tabooing relating to the military. I've lived in the South most of my adult life. I've known an awful lot of young people who 1) escaped viciously racist situations which would have led to years in and out of prison by enlisting (the guy in the most recent situation -- just described -- was however white) and 2) I can swear with confidence that none of the young people I'm thinking of, would fire on the people. And I thank Carol for raising this point in an earlier post. Artesian: I don't think there is any disagreement about the role of the army as an institution. I don't think that I disagree with Dan's characterization of the army as an enemy of the people.Certainly, as an institution, that is the military's role. Peg:We disagree on the definition of the military as an institution. I would not say it is an enemy of the people by definition That's why I began with Engels' definition of the state as the *laws* to defend and advance the interests of the ruling class and and *arms to enforce them. I do not think it a waste of time to struggle to quantitatively increase working class leverage vis a vis capital's while the interests of capital still dominate the state, a state, any state. * Artisian: The issue of contention was how best to crack the cohesiveness, the discipline that the military must have to function in that role. Peg: I agree the issue is cracking the cohesiveness, but I would stress cohesiveness of ideology and brain washing that divides those who sign up to escape poverty and prison from the objective class interests of others who are poor and in prison and not in the military. I said poor and in prison, rather than working class, because we are talking about Americans who would love to be working class, but are discriminated against by where they are at this time and place in the capitalist epoch Artisan: The suggestions by Peggy, IMO, are mistaken not because they are so utopian, but rather because they're so Proudhonian-- that old we want the capital, but without the capitalists idea. Here we want the military, without the miliarists-- we want the military to play a different role, to change its spots. Peg: I never studied Proudhon, mainly because I only ever heard of him denigratingly. But I will say if by capital, he means the difference between the accumulated exchangeable monetary form of the average labor time added and the world average labor time in the necessities the worker who adds them consumes, and if Proudhon understands this as the social surplus, or commonwealth, monetized and privatized, then I don't object to being characterized as wanting capital not even so radically as without the capitalists; but just without those allocating and reallocating it whatever they are called, being in a legal position to rip off most of the commonwealth as they see fit with no accountability to those who created that wealth (before its exchangeability for living labor is depreciated by leaps in productivity). And yes, I want the military to play a different role, but I understand it will not change its spots until made to do so. Artisan: That's not going to happen, and agitating for a million recruit increase is not going to crack that discipline.First off, we don't advocate the military as a way to reduce unemployment-- that's the military's line. We don't advocate it because that doesn't attack the class structure within the military, separate the ranks from the officer corps. We don't advocate it because it's all too close to the war is good for business, and what's good for business is good for labor argument.
Re: [Marxism] role of the army
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Just a comment on the teabaggers, the problems always been defining who is and isn't in the movement. Most of the people who talk about some grass roots movement of ordinary people invariably wind up talking about running into people at work or school or somewhere else, but the movement isn't the good wishes of coach potatoes wanting lower taxes. In my opinion, the people actually out there jostling each other to get on TV are the sort of characters Sartesian's described...lobbyists pawns and/or thuggish rubes. ML Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Role of the Army
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Re Kenneth Morgan's posting, it's noteworthy that many of the countries in Western Europe that have retained universal military conscription have not actually been involved in any wars since 1945. Conscription was abandoned in Britain in the mid-1950s despite the forces being involved in a wide range of wars against nationalist movements in the former empire. A regular army was seen as more reliable -- there was growing hostility amongst youth against conscription by then, and the military top-brass felt that it wasn't worth the bother trying to train disaffected youth -- and less expensive. In France, conscription continued, but the attempt to use conscripts in the Algerian war in the mid-1950s led to uproar, and most French military involvements have used only regular troops. There has also been a recent trend in Europe to move away from conscription towards professional regular forces, although I can't recall off-hand in which countries it has been replaced. With the deployment of Nato forces abroad, for example in Afghanistan, a hardly popular war in Europe, the move away from conscription will probably increase. It will be interesting to know if any of the Nato countries involved in Afghanistan are using any conscripts as combat troops, as opposed to regulars. Paul F The French socialist Jaures who was murdered in 1914 held similar views. You can find more on Jaures concept at the Marxist Internet Archives. If you make allowances for changes in technology his views aren't that off the wall. The universal conscription works if it's for a citizens militia, that is active duty time only enough time for training, which today would average 4 or 5 months except for some of the more technical specialties, followed by an extended time on reserve status with refresher training courses. Probably the best contemporary examples are the Swiss, Swedish and Finnish models. Even so, due to cut backs in the military since the end of the cold war, Switzerland and Sweden are inducting far less than the 60% of the manpower pool prior to 1990. There is debate in Sweden now about abandoning the historical citizens militia concept and going to an all volunteer force. A minority position to be sure. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Role of the Army
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Accepting Engel's definition of The State as The Laws [that support the interests of the ruling class] and the Armed Forces that defend them, the class identity of the armed forces is central to the outcome of any class struggle. This is well understood by people who live where putsches and coups are familiar; and the interests of one set of financial backers backing one set of colonels are replaced by another. Altho we may not recognize battles to determine which set will control the oil fields or diamond mines, or Information Tech consumer AND/OR labor markets as class struggles, they are(as is clear from Andrew grove's quote on a portside post just read) struggles between social groups with different relations to the means of production that determine the quantity AND quality of power human masses affected by them can exercise. How much power, how exercised, by how many? How 'bout lobbying for, or at least modest proposaling here that ANY American citizen be allowed to join the US Armed Forces and trained to serve as best they can in a second Reconstruction Reparation Army. Rather than Eco-in-name recyclers ripping off unemployed vets who rip out copper wires in abandoned homes where they crash, Rather than Green Prison Inc contracting for their convict labor processing hazardous materials, after they are arrested for burglary, why not loyal American soldiers with one thing in common -- they can't find work -- trained to reconstruct devastated neighborhoods in the US in order to work side by side with iraqis, afganis (isn't this what Pettreus advocates?) reconstructing theirs?It might even cost the taxpayers less than the contracting out to war reconstruction frauds like the Louis Berger Group that just paid $70.3 million in criminal and civil penalties for overbilling on their reconstruction work in afganistan, Iraq, and Sudan in a settlement that allows them to continue working on gov contracts (nyt 11/6/10 p A 9; google war reconstruction fraud nyt for URL) Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Role of the Army
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Peggy Dobbins pegdobb...@gmail.com wrote: How 'bout lobbying for, or at least modest proposaling here that ANY American citizen be allowed to join the US Armed Forces and trained to serve as best they can in a second Reconstruction Reparation Army. Oh, me, me, me, me, me. Better, I want to join the Space Corps and get on the Starship Enterprise (Well, if we're leaving reality behind us here, we might as well do it at warp speed, right?) ML Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Role of the Army
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == 'twas as I said a modest proposal in the spirit of Cox's Army of unemployed in 1932 in the name of, but not only consisting of, Vets from WWI. Alert! Avert speeding warped minds to cyber sewers of cynicism: A beta test in the offing already has Rove scouring for the executive order left before taking off to ghandiland. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 7, 2010, at 5:33 PM, Mark Lause markala...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Peggy Dobbins pegdobb...@gmail.com wrote: How 'bout lobbying for, or at least modest proposaling here that ANY American citizen be allowed to join the US Armed Forces and trained to serve as best they can in a second Reconstruction Reparation Army. Oh, me, me, me, me, me. Better, I want to join the Space Corps and get on the Starship Enterprise (Well, if we're leaving reality behind us here, we might as well do it at warp speed, right?) ML Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/pegdobbins%40gmail.com Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Role of the Army
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Mark Lause: It's an older proposal than that... try Edward Bellamy from the 1880s or George Lippard from the 1840s. Well, anyone who thinks about it, or surveys various successful and unsuccessful insurrections of the last century can easily see that their success or failure depends on whether the troops will fire on demonstrators or not. Carrol Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Role of the Army
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == I meant the specific plan of turning the army towards nonmilitary, socially useful purposes. Lippard was a fascinating utopian thinker and Gothic novelist of the 1840s who found himself inspired by the army of the Mexican War to discuss what such organization could do if put to building homes for the poor, etc. Bellamy's Nationalism at the turn of the last century attracted some interesting support from some prominent Civil War heroes because of this notion of the army as a tool for society and soldiers as members of society in particular service to the public good. It's a natural impulse, I suppose, because the military is the strongest institution in the capitalist state ML Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Role of the Army
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == So this is an (unforeseen, by me) major difference between the Marxist Leninist and the Anarcho-Syndicalist tradition. According to the pre-1914 CGT (an openly Anarcho-syndicalist union), the Spanish CNT, the Swedish SAC, the Agentinian FORA, the Italian USI, and I believe the American IWW, members of the military were seen as enemies of the working class. It was clearly understood that soldiers came from working class backgrounds, attracted by pay and opportunities. But immediately upon enlisting they also became class enemies, that the bourgeoisie would send to quell major revolts in any industrial area. Now, according to the reactions on this list, the traditional early 20th-century Anarcho-syndicalist view of the armed forces is no longer relevant. They are to be seen as erring members of the proletariat, whose allegiances can be shifted through propaganda. And thus, they are seen as being in a central position to unleash a revolution, since they have access to weapons and are basically alienated workers. This view, that is the main-stream view of the military on this list judging by the posts from Manuel Barrera to Louis Proyect to S. Artesian, is diametrically opposed to the views espoused by most militant revolutionary unions in the early 20th century. The French CGT will not accept a soldier in its ranks, the CNT refuses to let members of the repressive forces, i.e. policemen, soldiers and prison wardens join the union... What has changed since then in the social origin of most soldiers ? Nothing at all ! They are still, the common servicemen, representatives of the most downtrodden sections of the proletariat. So the change in perception must come from a change in the way revolutionaries since the 1940s see the army. WWII must be the explanation for this change in perspective. The People's Great War must have led to a greater degree of regard for members of the Armed forces who selflessly laid down their lives for the rest of us. Whether this paradigm is still of any use to Marxists generally is a question that merits debate... Especially in view of the increasing privatization of the Armed Forces and Police Froces in industrialized countries. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Role of the Army
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 11/6/10 3:32 PM, Dan wrote: According to the pre-1914 CGT (an openly Anarcho-syndicalist union), the Spanish CNT, the Swedish SAC, the Agentinian FORA, the Italian USI, and I believe the American IWW, members of the military were seen as enemies of the working class. Except of course when it came to the Kronstadt Rebellion when the sailors and soldiers were good friends of the working class. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Role of the Army
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Well, Louis, the position of the Kronstadt rebels (or the Makhnovtshitshina army, or the CNT militias) is not the same as that of the armed forces of an industrialized nation from the 16th century onwards. Just look at what happened to the Kronstadt mutineers : they were slaughtered by Trotsky who personaly supervised their anihilation. They were indeed soldiers in a garison city. But they were increasingly dissatisfied with the way the Bolshevik revolution was heading from 1920 onwards. They felt that the Bolsheviks were purpousefuly subverting the Soviets and preventing the people from organizing to make their will be known. Their basic mistake was that they thought that since they had already contributed to the Russian Revolution (naval bombing of the Winter Palace), they could not be considered as counter-revolutionaries and that they could gather support fromp Russian peasants and workers. This proved a mistake, as Trotsky simply destroyed Kronstadt and then created countless lies (Kronstadt is financed by Great Britain, Kronstadt soldiers are manipulated by White generals, etc.) which were then repeated ad infinitum by all the CPs in the world. So the Kronstadt rebels lost. But they were not in the same league as the infantry divisions of the REd Army sent to massacre them. They did not obey orders. They elected their own officers. In fact, they had NOTHING in common with a 20th century army obeying commands. I don't see the connection between a generalized hatred of the armed forces in early 20th century radical unions and Kronstadt. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Role of the Army
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Artesian, I hold your views in great esteem, and I believe that as Marxists, we share a dialectical understanding of how concrete history comes into being. We also eschew idealist categories. You criticize my claim that the present category of 'armed forces' can be traced back to the 16th century. I deliberately chose that arbitrary era in my post to suggest that this institution was formed as a result of the emergence both of the concept of the nation-state and of the growth in mercantile capitalism. Although one may point to the Hundred Years war as such a pivotal moment with the apparition of gunpowder (or even the Crusades with the apparition of private funding for armies by bankers), I think that the 16th century saw a) mass recruitment into national armies b) the discovery of the Americas and Ottoman expansion into mainland Europe c) disastrous civil wars between Catholics and Protestants leading to the dichotomy between an official army and insurgents d) the practice of paying soldiers a wage as distinct from simply letting them plunder e) an incredible increase in the power of firearms, meaning proficiency with a sword became unnecessary. Of course 17th century armies, 18th century armies, Napoleonic armies (mass conscription !), 20th century armies all have their distinctive characteristics. You are right of course when you say that it is a question of dialectical moment and mediation. Of course the army primarily consists of members of the proletariat. Of course, class struggle exists within the armed forces of a nation. But my contention is, the very nature of a modern (16th - 20th century) army, its very structure, is precisely designed to prevent a given unit from fraternizing with malcontents or deserting en masse. If one unit rebels against its commanding officer, another one will be charged with putting down the rebels. The whole point of having a modern defense force is having different units obeying one single command centre. And this command centre will never cease to exist. It may become Marxist-Leninist in Russia, or Nazi in Germany, or Nationalist in Serbia, or pro-Yankee in Argentina, it doesn't change the nature of the institution. So while some emancipation movements may receive weapons from some units in the army, the command centre will make sure the army as a whole doesn't disintegrate and that the new power structure will have an army at its disposal. The reproduction of the armed forces as a category implies the existence of a contradiction between the working class and a group trying to yield power over the working class. This basic contradiction stems from the nature and structure of the armed forces. In the case of popular militias, that are genuinely directed by workers' councils, the contradiction is resolved. Otherwise, it remains in full view of everyone in society. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Role of the Army
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Those are very good points about the transformation of the military with the emergence of mercantile capitalism... and I think if we follow through on that transformation into the 19th century and 20th century, we can see the military transformed into a national institution, one embodying the class contradictions within itself. Does or can the whole military go over to the revolution, which I think is the pint you are raising about centralized command and other units being available to put down rebel units? Maybe no, maybe yes. But really, does the entire WORKING CLASS go over to the revolution prior to a section, a big section, actually executes, actualizes the revolution? Maybe yes, maybe no... but in most cases probably not. Samey-same as we used to say back in the day. The whole point is to not let the military be separated from the stress and strains of the class struggle that pervade the rest of society. That's one reason, one big fat reason I think Marxists should be in favor of UNIVERSAL military service, yes, conscription, for everyone-- gays, heteros, confused, whatever-- rather than volunteer armies in bourgeois countries. - Original Message - From: Dan d.koech...@wanadoo.fr Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Role of the Army
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Here's one Marine Corps Major General I'd be prepared to posthumously absolve: I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Role of the Army
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 4:09 PM, S. Artesian sartes...@earthlink.net wrote: The whole point is to not let the military be separated from the stress and strains of the class struggle that pervade the rest of society. That's one reason, one big fat reason I think Marxists should be in favor of UNIVERSAL military service, yes, conscription, for everyone-- gays, heteros, confused, whatever-- rather than volunteer armies in bourgeois countries. The French socialist Jaures who was murdered in 1914 held similar views. You can find more on Jaures concept at the Marxist Internet Archives. If you make allowances for changes in technology his views aren't that off the wall. The universal conscription works if it's for a citizens militia, that is active duty time only enough time for training, which today would average 4 or 5 months except for some of the more technical specialties, followed by an extended time on reserve status with refresher training courses. Probably the best contemporary examples are the Swiss, Swedish and Finnish models. Even so, due to cut backs in the military since the end of the cold war, Switzerland and Sweden are inducting far less than the 60% of the manpower pool prior to 1990. There is debate in Sweden now about abandoning the historical citizens militia concept and going to an all volunteer force. A minority position to be sure. If universal conscription is for longer term service 2 to 4 years, then we're looking at something entireley different. The reason longer term service was initiated, especially by the Prussians, was to make the troops more amenable to following orders and more likely to fire on their own people, as oppossed to increasing competency. Even so, history shows that even for 2-4 year service, an army made up of a majority of conscripts is more likely to be won over by revolutionaries than an all volunteer force. One of the problems with the military draft in the US was that the active duty military and reserves only needed 32% of the available manpower pool every year prior to the Vietnam War. Even during the Vietnam War this increased only to 47%, still less than half. Mental and physical exemption in the US only amounted to around 30% of the manpower pool. - Original Message - From: Dan d.koech...@wanadoo.fr Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/kenmor1968%40gmail.com Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Role of the Army
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == S.Artesian wrote: I think Marxists should be in favor of UNIVERSAL military service, yes, conscription, for everyone-- gays, heteros, confused, whatever-- rather than volunteer armies in bourgeois countries. I understand the logic of this comment but I'm not sure that I'm convinced by it. I think that to be as definitive as this, you'd need to demonstrate that conscript armies under capitalism had proved the undoing of the states that created them. I'm not certain that the evidence exists for that. The most obvious example of a huge conscript army going over to the revolution in big numbers is obviously the Czarist army in 1917. But that army was a relic of feudalism, down to its aristocratic officer class and its archaic (by early 20th century terms) structure etc. A decade in Vietnam certainly saw some breakdown in US military discipline but can we put that down to its conscript nature rather than its losing the war? I don't know, I'm not an expert on the history of the US military. It won't be identical here of course, but in New Zealand, where I live, the army is a small professional force that prides itself (with some justification unfortunately) in its skill, efficiency etc. It is overwhelmingly recruited at the lowest ranks from the working class and is disproportionately Maori, the indigenous, and economically poorer, part of the population. More officers are white and university educated, but many NCOs are Maori. The head of the military is Maori. Many Maori families are multi-generational army families. We also have a part-time reserve force, the Territorials. I don't know the social composition of the Terries, but I suspect it's probably not so working class. The only people I know who have joined it have been at university and lots of them were utter prats, going on to careers in law etc. Of course the army's elite force, the SAS, would act as assassins for the state to the bitter end. Would the regular army go over to the revolution? I don't know but I'd have more faith in it doing so than the cops. And I know that if we had a revolutionary situation and the army did defect en masse, we'd have a huge issue to deal with in preventing the military from hijacking the revolution. But I remain unconvinced that any of these issues would be any different if the rank and file were formally conscripted instead of economically conscripted as is the case now. During WWI, socialists were gaoled for their opposition to conscription. That was a principled position and I think it was the correct one. By WWII, those same (now ex) socialists were leading the Labour government and gaoling opponents of conscription. I think it's an important question but I don't think it's been resolved to the degree that S.Artesian assumes. Cheers, John Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Role of the Army
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == There is talk about the Paris Commune as an example of units from the national guard siding with insurgeants. But do you actually realize that the Paris Commune is a case in point ? The two months long rebellion was put down BY THE FRENCH ARMY. They easily surrounded Paris and methodically destroyed any resistance, neighbourhood by neighbourhood. The soldiers involved were nearly all conscripts, 18 to 22 year-olds, who had barely finished basic military training. The massacre of rebels lasted five days, and had to be postponed simply because executing 35 000 people by firing squad put too much of a strain on resources. Groups of thirty rebels were lined up, shot, another group was lined up, shot, another group was lined up, shot, and after a series of twenty such executions by firing squad, the rifles became too hot to handle. And then they malfunctioned, the hammer consistently failing to hit the base of the cartridge.This meant that executions of communards could not proceed at the adequate pace. The idea was, in the words of Thiers and the bourgeoisie, to shoot all radicals or suspected radicals from working class areas so as to cleanse Paris from its infection. Initial plans were to execute 125 000 people, but had to be abandoned because of logistical problems (too costly in terms of guns, and the risk of disease arising from too many unburied corpses lying on the streets). So the conseils de guerre sentenced communards to deportation to Guyana and New Caledonia instead, where it was hoped hard labour and the climate would kill them. Again, this massacre was carried out be ordinary conscripts, which explains the opposition of the early CGT to conscription. As WWI grew closer, the CGT warned that conscripts are nothing more than cannon fodder and should desert at the earliest opportunity rather than getting slaughtered or slaughtering innocent German workers who happen to be also conscripted by the bourgeoisie of their country. The radical element of the CGT was arrested at the outbreak of WWI, and the CGT itself completely disorganized as nationalist sentiment meant that class consciousness was seen as treason by the masses. The same thing happened with the IWW in America. So conscription was seen as a great evil by early 20th century revolutionists. This mindset changed somewhat in the 1920s due to the influence of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, but remained strong in many organizations. Conscription was seen as the bourgeoisie getting its hands on the entire youth of the working classes and compelling it to fight for its own ends. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Role of the Army
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == I think Marxists should be in favor of UNIVERSAL military service, yes, conscription, for everyone-- gays, heteros, confused, whatever-- rather than volunteer armies in bourgeois countries. At the present time, I agree. If there was a draft in the US today, I don't think the US gov't could prosecute the wars it is presently fighting. I think that to be as definitive as this, you'd need to demonstrate that conscript armies under capitalism had proved the undoing of the states that created them. I'm not certain that the evidence exists for that. That may be true, but there is evidence that conscript armies can add to anti-war movements and help undermine the state (e.g. Vietnam or the Portuguese revolt). There's no doubt disbanding armies would be preferable, but barring that, the burden should be shared rather than allowing the creation of an untouchable professional military or putting the burden only on certain segments of society. -- Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Role of the Army
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == The Army is the enemy of the people. Whether an external threat or an internal threat, the Army will always do its duty as loyal servant to those who yield power (privileges). It is the basic hierarchical structure of the armed forces we object to. I mean we, Libertarian Marxists, not we, anything goes as long as it remotely resembles Lenin Marxists. The Army is a harmful institution that is purposefully disjointed from the people, and purposefully entrusted with powerful weapons to subdue the people. If you can't see that, you are blind. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Role of the Army
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Take it easy, Dan. That's hardly the point of disagreement. Nobody is arguing for the capitalist military. We are simply against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation anywhere it's practiced and certainly everywhere it is institutionalized. That's all there is to this. - Original Message - From: Dan d.koech...@wanadoo.fr Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Role of the Army
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Dan d.koech...@wanadoo.fr wrote: The Army is the enemy of the people. For goodness sake, the armed forces are a pretty critical variable in any societal transformation, forward as well as backward, and stabilization whichever direction. The People have no hope if The Army is always and by definition the enemy of the people. Does someone think 'the proletarian state' is sans army? How then could they be for the working class as the ruling class? This is why trusting peace and justice to a spirit above or the spirit within is always just smelling the incense whoever buys it for or from the guru. -- Margaret Powell Dobbins www.PeggyDobbins.net Sociology a form of Art Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Role of the Army
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == I thought that the argument was 1. If the army is (generally, in all but the most revolutionary circumstances - i.e. the Red army under Trotsky) the enemy of the people. 2. How could anyone, of any gender or sexual preference, be defended if they choose to join? What happens AFTER they join is a totally different question. Not an unimportant one, no - but let's try to deal with first things first. - Bill Peggy Dobbins wrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Dan d.koech...@wanadoo.fr wrote: The Army is the enemy of the people. For goodness sake, the armed forces are a pretty critical variable in any societal transformation, forward as well as backward, and stabilization whichever direction. The People have no hope if The Army is always and by definition the enemy of the people. Does someone think 'the proletarian state' is sans army? How then could they be for the working class as the ruling class? This is why trusting peace and justice to a spirit above or the spirit within is always just smelling the incense whoever buys it for or from the guru. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Role of the Army
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Bill, you ask how anyone joining the army could be defended. Defended in what way? If Blacks are subject to organized racism by white enlistees, as they were for most this country's history...you wouldn't defend them? Really? In Vietnam this was a major cause of the break down of the US army under pressure from the Vietnamese. No one asked if the Blacks who were organizing against racism there were drafted or enlisted. Also, during the March 4th budget cut battle we worked with many young men and women who had been in the armed forces or were about to enlist or WERE enlisted and did so for a variety of reason, the biggest, obviously, being economic as the economy simply sucks and they could finish their education on the government's dime if they joined up. Most didn't want to go to fight, most wanted to be stationed in the US and so on. It spanned the gamut of reasons and rationalizations. Of course I would try to discuss the issue but there it is. They were as militant as anyone. I talked with a young ISOer at the recent Statewide Conference Against the Budget Cuts. African-American he became radicalized in the Navy. Should he not of been 'defended' because he originally enlisted? He is a phenomically intellegent young Marxist who probably wouldn't be one had he not had that experience. I'm not arguing FOR enlisting, I'm just not willing to help them compose their letters of request to join the Tea Party like some of you seem to. I think most of you who rush to condemnation had ought to walk in their footsteps a bit first, or at least be in the same room with some of the people who sign up and *listen* to them before lecturing... David Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Role of the Army
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == For goodness' sake. What's so bloody hard about this? Capitalist employers are oppressing the people, and probably have more deaths to their name (malnutrition, famine, etc) than the armies of the world put together. Yet I haven't seen people saying how fighting for equal access to jobs (capitalist jobs under capitalist employers) for women, gays, people of race X, or religion Y, is a bad thing. The army is yet another employer. People join the army for largely the same reasons why they join another employer. They need to alienate their labour in order to obtain the means of subsistence. It's hierarchical, what a shock. I guess capitalist concerns are examples of egalitarianism. No-one got fired for arguing with the boss outside the military, ever. A bit of perspective. --David. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Role of the Army
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 7:10 PM, DW dwalters...@gmail.com wrote: I talked with a young ISOer at the recent Statewide Conference Against the Budget Cuts. African-American he became radicalized in the Navy. Should he not of been 'defended' because he originally enlisted? He is a phenomically intellegent young Marxist who probably wouldn't be one had he not had that experience. I'm not arguing FOR enlisting, I'm just not willing to help them compose their letters of request to join the Tea Party like some of you seem to. I think most of you who rush to condemnation had ought to walk in their footsteps a bit first, or at least be in the same room with some of the people who sign up and *listen* to them before lecturing... Well said. I've talked to young people who enlisted, who said being in the military was a hell of a lot better than being homeless and unemployed. I totally understand. With education costs increasing over twice the overall inflation rate since 1970 VA benefits are the only option for those wishing to pursue post secondary education. During some of the hard times I've been through, had I not been over aged I would have went back in. Adam correctly reminded us all of the positive response that returning Vietnam vets, my self included, received from anti war activists. Until we have a society with guaranteed employment, at a liveable wage, with the right to unionize, or a minimum income, the military will continue to be an attractive option for many. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/kenmor1968%40gmail.com Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Role of the Army
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Sartesian said: Exactly, again. It cannot be any simpler. We oppose discrimination. Period. Unequivocally. All the time. It seems Marxist economic theory may result in erudite economies of thought as well. Careful, Sartie, I may have to yell, Right On!right on. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Role of the Army
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == We play by rules not of their making. We all survive by selling our labor to capitalism is all of a fabric. If you work in a car factory, if you teach, if you deliver the mail, if you work on technology...all of it's there to serve the system. We oppose discrimination based on idioitic and invidious distinctions in all these areas and the fact that all of them are part of the fabric of capitalism isn't decisive to us. ML Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Role of the Army
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Even a blind pig finds an acorn every once in awhile. - Original Message - From: Manuel Barrera mtom...@hotmail.com To: sartes...@earthlink.net Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 11:31 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism] Role of the Army Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
