How do you think the military code and principles should be in a socialist society? Would military members be free to disobey orders, would the military structure be more democratic but not totally liberal, how would it be?
The military would not exist within a socialist society. It is simple as that. We seek a world without the nation-state and without classes, so what role is there for armed forces. We argue that socialism will end the cause of wars and religions and racism.
The existing military can easily be transformed into some sort of Peace Corps. All that engineering, communications and logistic skills can be utilised constructively, making full use of the sense of adventure and testosterone hormone filled youth in the jungles and mountains of the world building necessary infrastructure.
On further reflection part of our socialist case as stated in our declaration of principles is that we seek to capture political power
"That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic."
So there will be a period where the socialist movement will be in control of the military. How it adapts and changes and what form it adopts, we can only hazard a guess that for all practical purposes there will be little change. We do no envisage some sort of Red Army or Spanish Civil War anarchist militia being formed in its stead. Obviously there may be a change of relationship between ranks but in what way may well depend on the time and the circumstances. One may well ask a similar question about the merchant navy...the role of the captain, officers and the crew. Engels used that example against Bakunin the anarchist...as also the relationship between the orchestra and the conductor.
Sorry for the vagueness and the lack of clarity but it is simply too early in the development of socialism to declare a definitive answer. Ask again closer the time when there are substantial socialists within the military
Thank you for displaying your perspective. The idea of transforming the military device into a constructive tool of engineering and science is fruitful, although unlikely to materialize anytime soon. There is also the doubt of how the working class would protect itself from eventual attacks of the dispossessed ruling class, since they would not instantly accept their loss of control over the world's wealth and power. Still, you clarified that this idea still has to be developed to become more lucid and conclusive.
In 1904 when our declaration of principles was adopted there were various groups who argued for armed insurrection and general strikes as the means to achieve socialism. The SPGB argued for the ballot box and one reason was that we said this would give us the legitimacy as the democratic party in control of the state institutions to use the existing armed forces against any pro-capitalist minority which may wish to resist. Part of our reasoning is that we suggest that soldiers are workers in uniform and would reflect the socialist consciousness that had arisen in society in general.
Without the figures at hand , i think for every coup that has taken place, ten or more failed because the military remained loyal to the political control of those in control of the State. Every successful 'revolution' required the military to swing to its side of the workers or to remain neutral.
Our lack of detail shouldn't be mistaken for lack of importance and as you say we still have some way to go beyond the generalisation to specifics.
5 comments:
How do you think the military code and principles should be in a socialist society? Would military members be free to disobey orders, would the military structure be more democratic but not totally liberal, how would it be?
The military would not exist within a socialist society. It is simple as that. We seek a world without the nation-state and without classes, so what role is there for armed forces. We argue that socialism will end the cause of wars and religions and racism.
The existing military can easily be transformed into some sort of Peace Corps. All that engineering, communications and logistic skills can be utilised constructively, making full use of the sense of adventure and testosterone hormone filled youth in the jungles and mountains of the world building necessary infrastructure.
On further reflection part of our socialist case as stated in our declaration of principles is that we seek to capture political power
"That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic."
So there will be a period where the socialist movement will be in control of the military. How it adapts and changes and what form it adopts, we can only hazard a guess that for all practical purposes there will be little change. We do no envisage some sort of Red Army or Spanish Civil War anarchist militia being formed in its stead. Obviously there may be a change of relationship between ranks but in what way may well depend on the time and the circumstances. One may well ask a similar question about the merchant navy...the role of the captain, officers and the crew. Engels used that example against Bakunin the anarchist...as also the relationship between the orchestra and the conductor.
Sorry for the vagueness and the lack of clarity but it is simply too early in the development of socialism to declare a definitive answer. Ask again closer the time when there are substantial socialists within the military
Thank you for displaying your perspective. The idea of transforming the military device into a constructive tool of engineering and science is fruitful, although unlikely to materialize anytime soon. There is also the doubt of how the working class would protect itself from eventual attacks of the dispossessed ruling class, since they would not instantly accept their loss of control over the world's wealth and power. Still, you clarified that this idea still has to be developed to become more lucid and conclusive.
In 1904 when our declaration of principles was adopted there were various groups who argued for armed insurrection and general strikes as the means to achieve socialism. The SPGB argued for the ballot box and one reason was that we said this would give us the legitimacy as the democratic party in control of the state institutions to use the existing armed forces against any pro-capitalist minority which may wish to resist. Part of our reasoning is that we suggest that soldiers are workers in uniform and would reflect the socialist consciousness that had arisen in society in general.
Without the figures at hand , i think for every coup that has taken place, ten or more failed because the military remained loyal to the political control of those in control of the State. Every successful 'revolution' required the military to swing to its side of the workers or to remain neutral.
Our lack of detail shouldn't be mistaken for lack of importance and as you say we still have some way to go beyond the generalisation to specifics.
Post a Comment