Military of a Socialist country?

[dogukan]

Let's assume we've got the perfect Socialist state X. And it has many hostile neighbours.
This state needs an armed force to defend herself.
How should the army be?
To be efficient, there has to be a command chain...a hierarchy. But wouldn't this go against the idea of socialism? A command chain, people who give orders to lesser ranking people...the perfect idea would be to have sort of a militia force which would be inefficient as hell in modern combat ways.

I was also wondering how did Cuba dealt with this?
And how did Soviets made their way accepted? As far as I know they had commisars and rest of the army was rankless except for generals.
So did any political theorists mentioned this issue?

And in such countries, who would deal with the crimes? Police? POLICE!!!???

[Treize]

Dunno, ask North-Korea...

But what do you see as socialist, marx like or like Sweden and most of western-europe?

[dogukan]

Dunno, ask North-Korea...

But what do you see as socialist, marx like or like Sweden and most of western-europe?

Mr.Marx's ways...the problem is, I haven't read his books yet. So I don't know how he and other socialist intellectuals deals with this.

[Azog 150]

Well originally, during the Provisional Government of Russia, the Soviets demanded the government allowed the soldiers to elect a commander or allow soldiers to vote on decisions. Naturally, the soldiers who were sick of 3 years appalling casualties, lack of supplies and just fighting in general, just elected the commanders who promised they would not go on any more assaults across no-mans land, and who basically would allow them to sit around doing nothing. This was one of the reasons for the Russian June Offensive being a disaster. So yeah, basically, socialist armies do not work.

Naturally, the Bolsheviks returned to the old system when they came to power.

[Captain Jin]

Military chain of command is always going to be completely separate to whatever form of government you are running. It doesn't matter if it's a purely socialist state, military chain of command is military chain of command, which is absolutism. EVERY military on the face of the Earth follows this whether they are Democracy, constitutional Republic, Constitutional monarchy, Socialist, fascist, communist etc. The only difference is the length at which said army's will punish dissenters within the ranks to enforce said absolutism. Democracy, for instance, has no place in the military whatsoever, despite that many democratic governments have a military, but subordinates do not vote in their leadership, nor do they vote on the best course of action.

Game: Set, match, win.

[Panzerbear]

I dont understand the question. socialism = more state power which would cascade down on people in terms of goods and services via fairness doctrine. army faired just fine in the socialist states - with notable examples of Soviet Army, Chinese Army, North Korean Army.

[dogukan]

I dont understand the question. socialism = more state power which would cascade down on people in terms of goods and services via fairness doctrine. army faired just fine in the socialist states - with notable examples of Soviet Army, Chinese Army, North Korean Army.

I would not say Soviet army was efficient.....their losses were the most as far as I remember.
The strict command chain is much more efficient....I think I agree with captain Jin. And now I understand it better as Marx theory was that everyone would join the revolution which would leave no demand for an army.

[Bovril]

The strict command chain is much more efficient....I think I agree with captain Jin.

Well, that depends what you want your military to achieve. If you want your military to carry out the will of a central power, obviously a strict chain of cammand is best. But if you want your military to play an active part in creating a revolutionary society, democratic institutions inside the military would be usefull. Its quite easy to see this process occuring in the Russian and Spanish civil wars. As soon as the Bolshevics in both arenas took the military under direct dictatorial controll they stopped playing the political revolutionary role they had so succesfully earlier on, but often became more effective fighting forces.

[dogukan]

Well, that depends what you want your military to achieve. If you want your military to carry out the will of a central power, obviously a strict chain of cammand is best. But if you want your military to play an active part in creating a revolutionary society, democratic institutions inside the military would be usefull. Its quite easy to see this process occuring in the Russian and Spanish civil wars. As soon as the Bolshevics in both arenas took the military under direct dictatorial controll they stopped playing the political revolutionary role they had so succesfully earlier on, but often became more effective fighting forces.

But place that into modern combat.....it feels to me like they'd have no difference than those disorganized insurgents in Iraq.

There has to be some sort of disorganization, lack of discpline in such a force which would decrease the efficieny of combat in the general picture while maybe it could get the advantage in the long run.
I feel like a socialist fighter has to be like a guerilla, in his free will with a group of others like him....deciding what to do together.
But then how it would be in the air force, navy and tank forces? It has to be like in the army form which is in use all over the world today.

[Panzerbear]

I would not say Soviet army was efficient.....their losses were the most as far as I remember.

Soviet Army was extremely efficient. ever since end of WW2, were it emerged with millions of hardcore battle-hardened veterans and combat-proven airforce aces, the Red Army dominated everything and everyone on its way. just look at Soviet combat performance against Japanese in the Pacific in 1945.

Afghanistan? 16,000 KIA. Vietnam? 64,000 KIA. different things, I know, but whose drafties sucked less - its still very much an open question.

The strict command chain is much more efficient...

strict command chain is only efficient during war time. which is why socialist systems were doing absolutely great during tremendous hardships, but were rotting during stable peace time.

[Rapax]

just look at Soviet combat performance against Japanese in the Pacific in 1945.

Against the Emperor's elite no less.

Afghanistan? 16,000 KIA. Vietnam? 64,000 KIA. different things, I know, but whose drafties sucked less - its still very much an open question.

I'm sure you can tell me at which point Soviet troop numbers reached more than half a million in Afghanistan as the Americans did in Vietnam. If you purely wanna juggle numbers of course.

[Panzerbear]

Against the Emperor's elite no less.

I will let wikipedia do the talking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwantung_Army

I'm sure you can tell me at which point Soviet troop numbers reached more than half a million in Afghanistan as the Americans did in Vietnam. If you purely wanna juggle numbers of course.

Soviets did more with less . just messing with you .

either way, if anyone, you as a German should know how the Red Army guards divisions performed against Wehrmacht, SS and Axis allies.

[Boer]

The theory was that the entire world would be swept up in one massive socialist revolution, so then there would be no need for a long-term army because there would be no enemy to oppose socialism. The USSR was forced to change radically when the revolution failed to spread to more advanced countries, which all Russian Marxists said was needed for the survival of socialism in Russia. The response was the growth of a dictatorship and increased one-party (really one person) rule under Stalin for the purpose of preserving Socialism in One Country, which became the driving force in Soviet actions.


The USSR basically abandoned its theoretical ideals in favor of practical considerations such as industrialization and its own survival.

[Bovril]

The usual answer from revolutionary socialists of the left Marxist tradition would be that the military would be organised along the same lines as industries. leaders would be elected by the bodies of men they commanded and would be recalled to them periodically. Rules would be made by meetings of soldiers councils. All this is a bit like what the anarchists did during the Spanish Civil War. It's also worth noting that according to Marxist theory, once a genuine socialist revolution occured (i.e. in one of the world's most develloped countries) it would spread quickly by the cooperation between the organised working class in that and other countries that armies would hardly figure in the process. After all, most people in a given army are working class, so according to Marx, they should be fairly easy to persuade to join the revolution rather than fight against it. The idea of 'socialism in one country' within the revolutionary Marxist tradition was invented by Stalin to a large extent, and is contrary to traditional Marxism, though not to Social Democracy of course.
As it turns out, Marx got his theory about where revolutions would occur very wrong. Since the most powerful countries never had revolutions, his ideas about how socialism (of his variety) would spread did not come to pass. A little while after Marx's death, Engels recognised this was going to be the case and started about revising his historiographical theory.

There a great many ironies about the history of the application (or, better, misaplication) of Marxism, but this is probably not the plac to list them all.

[Dr. Croccer]

Hardcore Socialists and Communists generally proposed a ''peoples' army'', i.e. conscripts. The army of the early Soviet Union consisted mainly out of Left Wing radicals with ex-Czarist officers. Stalin's army consisted out of conscripts. Pretty much anyone, men, women even children was accepted for military service though the latter were exempt from conscription. He also conscripted Partisans that they discovered in reconquered areas.

I don't think Marx or Engels thought too much about this.

[Hesus de bodemloze]

Well NKVD (KGB) did a lot for the soviets.

[Dr. Croccer]

either way, if anyone, you as a German should know how the Red Army guards divisions performed against Wehrmacht, SS and Axis allies.

With a bit help from the Fuhrer and the Prussian automatons...

Though the Red Army was impressive. It's tanks managed to find the fine balance between quality and quantity that the Western allies and Germans failed to achieve. Men like Zhukov, Chuikov and Rossokovsky and such were extremely talented and lacked the squables that the generals SHAEF often had or being automatons or cronies that dare not speak against the Glorious Leader, like quite a lot of German generals.

[Bovril]

ignore.

[Poach]

The military of a country does not exist to practice the form of government or values of that country, but to defend that country, it's government and values.

It's just the way of things that for a military to operate well there has to be an absolute command with superiors and inferiors. If, through some strange alteration of the Universe, the most efficient way to run an Army was via democracy and equality, the militaries of even a Facist state would run this way.

It is simply the only realistic way to run an Army in this world, and regardless of form of government or national values it will continue to be so and the best militaries will run that way.

[Homeros]

The military of a country does not exist to practice the form of government or values of that country, but to defend that country, it's government and values.

Ever heard of a military coup?