Soldiers Aren’t Victims, And They Deserve Contempt | The Maple
There’s never an excuse to join the army, despite the justifications some so-called progressives try to make.
You're viewing a single thread.
help me out, how many successful left wing revolutions happened without the aid or use of a military in the last 100 years ? my history is rusty.
how many of those revolutions were aided by a fully volunteer army who's entire job was being the international cops of empire?
That's an incredibly loaded question since "entirely volunteer" armies are a recent thing and still not exactly universal.
However, every single Marxist revolution has been aided by former soldiers of the state being overthrown
there is a fundamental difference between the interests and status of conscripts and professional soldiers
After they become vets, that difference becomes almost nil.
However, every single Marxist revolution has been aided by former soldiers of the state being overthrown
Completely untrue. It wasn't true in China, Cuba, Vietnam, or the DPRK for starters. Honestly, it isn't true for most revolutions. None of the Eastern bloc countries save for the Soviet Union relied on former soldiers on account of the former soldiers being, you know, fascists who must be liquidated. Just because it was true for the case of the Soviet Union doesn't mean it's a metaphysical rule that applied to every subsequent revolution. That is idealism.
It absolutely was true in China and I would be shocked if it was not the case in Cuba. Vietnam I really can't say. The DPRK had immense help from first the Soviets and then China in the actual war.
It absolutely was true in China
Nope, I already went over this.
I would be shocked if it was not the case in Cuba.
Fidel et al were facing Batista and his goons. There's no evidence of those goons joining the Cuban Revolution except maybe for opportunist cowards quickly switching sides when Batista troops were being executed by firing squad for being enemies and traitors to the Cuban people.
The DPRK had immense help from first the Soviets and then China in the actual war.
We're talking about soldiers of a reactionary regime who defected to the revolutionary army, not random ally countries materially helping a socialist government after the reactionary regime has already been overthrown. I'm talking about when Korea was under fascist Japan control during WWII. Kim Il Sung obviously didn't receive nor expect help from Japanese fascists or comprador Koreans collaborating with the Japanese fascist regime.
Your point is silly. Mao, Castro, Ho, and Kim didn't specifically try to recruit disgruntled KMT, Batista, French, and Japanese soldiers to their revolutionary armies.
that's exactly my point. marxist revolutions have gotten support from large numbers of former soldiers before, but modern armies have changed in ways that make that happening again very unlikely.
this isn't a good thing for us, but unless people start getting drafted to die fighting China i don't think trying to appeal to military members is going to get us anywhere helpful.
you got me , my history isn't as goood as yours so can tell me : which left wing revolutions intent on establishing left wing communism didn't use the military at any point ? i get that most Western militaries are right wing by intent & design, but do they have to be ? why can the average solidier never be a revlutionary subject? because i rememeber very few left wing national projects suceeding without the enthusiastic approval of their military?
yes, modern western militaries have to be right wing because the states they serve are right wing. not conscripting people is also a powerful way to avoid left wing radicalization in the military. i'd be willing to bet if the west gets into a war so bad that drafts come back we'll have a chance of winning over the military again, but until then trying to opportunistically appeal to soldiers as a class is counterproductive.
Those were conscript armies. The class character between conscript armies and modern volunteer armies in NATO countries is vastly different.
"we must ignore the excesses of the military arm of the american empire's vassal states because they will be useful in a hypothetical revolution some time in the future"
"I just made this man of straw and now I'm beating it with a stick"
That is what the comment said. Debate falacies are for reddit freaks
i didn't say that, i'm just actually unaware of how successfull revolutions happen with out miltita that has at one point been controlled by the state ? if so, how? Cause if we can swerve away from generation kill : the dodge charger, coloniser adventure duck hunt edition , i'm for it . but my understanding is that these things require guns , and its best to be friends with the dudes with the sizeable ability to project force.
i didn't say that, i'm just actually unaware of how successfull revolutions happen with out miltita that has at one point been controlled by the state ?
Honestly, most successful revolutions didn't rely on the state's military. People take the exceptional case of the Russian Revolution and assume most revolutions are like this. China is a good example of the general rule. Virtually every soldier that would form what would eventually become the PLA didn't come from the KMT's NRA. Whether they were guerilla fighters or part of the formal PLA, they were all trained on their own by the PLA's own officers. Mao was able to convince some warlords like Zhu De to join the CPC and fold their personal troops into the PLA, but those were warlords who were also against the KMT. The closest thing is that some PLA officers were trained in Whampoa Military Academy, but even that isn't what you're talking about since Whampoa was partially funded by the Soviet Union with Soviet military instructors.
The US equivalent would be like if the CPUSA had some cadets be trained at West Point except West Point was partially funded by the PRC with Chinese military instructors while at the same time trying to convince the Crips and the Bloods to become Communists, forming a revolutionary army of former gangbangers commanded by CPUSA cadre trained by Chinese military instructors. What I just outlined sounds pretty far-fetched except that was what the BPP was sorta aiming for. They constantly tried to reach out to street gangs while at the same time keeping in touch for other international revolutionary movements.
This is not sucking up to Marine vets coming back from Iraq after mag dumping Iraqi kids.
The closest thing is that some PLA officers were trained in Whampoa Military Academy, but even that isn't what you're talking about since Whampoa was partially funded by the Soviet Union with Soviet military instructors
Who controlled Whampoa? I would assume the KMT.
Anyway, it was around 25 years between the founding of the PLA and the end of the Civil War, wasn't it? Even if the founding personnel were all previously civilian (minus the exceptions you mentioned) did they not get a significant number of KMT defectors or vets over the entire period until 1949?
Who controlled Whampoa? I would assume the KMT.
Right, and the academy had a problem in getting Chinese instructors, so they had to rely on Soviet instructors, which means those future CPC commanders, who were already members of the CPC when they were trained at the academy, were mostly trained by Soviet instructors, not KMT instructors. And those Soviet instructors were only around because the KMT at the time didn't purge its leftist wing yet. In the end, it's a very complicated situation that has no good US equivalent. It would be like if a military academy in Mali was staffed by Wagner personnel. Does it count as Malian because that's where the academy is physically located and is administered by the Malian authorities or does it count as Russian since all the training is done by Russian personnel or does it count as Wagner but not Russian in light of the attempted coup against Putin?
Anyway, it was around 25 years between the founding of the PLA and the end of the Civil War, wasn't it? Even if the founding personnel were all previously civilian (minus the exceptions you mentioned) did they not get a significant number of KMT defectors or vets over the entire period until 1949?
Not really except at the very end when the KMT completely collapsed post 1945. Obviously, there will be opportunists and cowards mixed in with people who were conscripted by gunpoint who have no loyalty and jumped ship when it began sinking, but victory was already inevitable at that point. I don't really count defectors who only defect because they don't want to be part of the losing team. Obviously, if you count those people, yes those revolutions had defectors although I don't think those revolutionary movements actually use those defectors in any meaningful capacity since victory was already inevitable at that point.
You're supposed to build the revolutionary military from the ground up, not suck up to vets coming from a reactionary army lmao
Does the IRA count? Because I think that's more likely to be the style of conflict that emerges rather than the conventional warfare of the Russian and Chinese revolutions, and I don't think they were particularly concerned about saying mean things about the Black and Tans.