Socialists and squaddies
Posted on Friday 14 September, 2007
Filed Under Society
You could quite easily come away with the impression that New Labour doesn’t care too much for ordinary servicemen and women.
Gulf War Syndrome? Doesn’t exist. First world war victims of post-traumatic stress syndrome, executed by British officers? Guilty as charged. The Deepcut Barracks dead? They killed themselves.
Today the House of Commons defence committee adds to the charge sheet with a report on services accommodation that throws the effusive verbal gratitude for the work of ‘our boys’ into sharp relief. Here’s how the BBC sums it up:
Some armed forces housing remains in an “appalling condition” and could take decades to be brought up to scratch …
And these days it goes without saying that some of this is down to yet another privatisation success story:
In family housing, repairs had been sub-contracted to a private company, but the level of service was “unacceptably poor”, the committee said.
Within the left there is a range of ideas on the attitude socialists should take to the armed forces, including outright pacificism, the traditional Marxist slogan of ‘not a penny, not a man for the system’, and the ‘workers in uniform’ stance that insists squaddies are intrinsically part of the working class.
Before the usual suspects launch into a predictable hard-core ultraleftist ‘let the bastards rot in their army slums’ posturing binge, can I just remind everybody that one or two service personnel seem to read this blog and have left comments before now. What can the socialists sensibly say to them?
I’ll start by suggesting rapid withdrawal from Iraq, and democratisation of the forces, including the right to trade union organisation and decent living conditions for all ranks.
Britain should drop its ‘world power’ imperial pretensions and give up its seat on the UN security council, while still maintaining the capability to patrol its borders and to participate in peacekeeping missions. Any other ideas?
<<Go back
Comments
27 Responses to “Socialists and squaddies”
Bring back compulsory national service for all, no exceptions. With decent pay, right to join trade unions, right to strike, election of officers and NCOs, officers having to go through the ranks, if there is a need for them of course.
Think about it, if we had national service norhthern Ireland, Iraq, Afganistan wouldn’t have happened, there would have been strikes and mutinies. The ruling class wouldn’t be able to get away with illegal and unpopular wars.
Also do any socialists really object to the masses having military training?
Do you really think having a professional military who on the whole tend to unquestioningly obey orders
and are faithful servants of imperialism better?
You’ve become too used to your own stereotype of the ‘ultra left’ in that they would say ‘let the bastards rot in their army slums’ – maybe a few anarcho types would but this ‘ultraleft’ says politely to anyone in the armed forces listening -
You can not expect socialists to have any concern or support any of your doubtless real concerns about the way you are treated by your employer. You crossed the line by volunteering and as such are part of the enemy until such time as you leave.
The above is an entirely predictable response that most (not all) Trots would give but it’s not as though your contrary views are ‘new thinking’.
Many Labour lefts would think participating in peacekeeping missions is good. It means act in concert with whatever imperialist objective the UN signs up to such as attacking (what was) Yugoslavia or support situations like in the Western Sahara where MINURSO acts to support Moroccan occupation.
And ‘patrol the borders – who exactly is going to attack?
Indeed -’not a penny and not a person for ‘defence’ There is nothing new under the sun
Paddy, ‘Bring back compulsory national service for all, no exceptions.’ which in effect is what happened in WW2 – many people obliged to be in the ranks didn’t change military policy (apart from a few minor instances).
What you call for is the army of a socialist regime but to think that such reforms of the present day armed forces is like calling for bank managers to be elected – a confusion of the need to remake them first not ‘democratise’ that which is intrinsically part of which we need to destroy.
Found this, very interesting:
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/johann_hari/article2204057.ece
Can’t help but agree with most of it.
Also when I have discussed this issue with other socialists, quite afew tend to agree with me, but no left organisation is brave enough to publicly support it.
The case tends to be bit different in most other European countries in that it tends to be the right wing who support the concept of a professional military who would be willing to do anything for the ruling class and its the left who prefer to retain conscription
The Forces have been under-funded for years and the way in which the family housing contract was done was an example of total idiocy. Failure to include delivery of service penalties in a maintenance contract will always result in shoddy service.
As to the forces in general I look forward to hearing the views of any service personnel but a few things seem obvious:
1. Considerable investment is required to bring the forces equipment up to scratch.
2. Overstretching in any sphere builds up problems that take a long time to sort out. Once the troops are back, the UK will not be in a position for any more overseas ventures for some time.
3. There is no reason to give up the UN seat and we no longer control our borders.
Finally I would suggest to paddy garcia that a military that does not follow orders is not a military, just lots of people with guns.
As Paddy Garcia is a supporter of Osamaa bin Laden, I would regard anything he says about the British Army as suspect. As for Southpaw Punch, he has already said that a fascist victory in the 2nd World War would have granted India Independence and he would have joined the SS.
Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem on this subject in the 1890′s. I’ve been looking for a copy of it, but unfortunately I can’t remember it’s title or find teh verse. The poem comments on how badly soldiers are treated in peacetime ie ‘I went into a public house to have a pint of beer/The publican he ups and says, ‘We don’t want your sort in here’ and yet in times of war people can’t praise the army enough. ‘Oh, it’s Tommy this, and Tommy that, when the guns begin to roar…’. Plus ca change as the French say.
And as Sue R is a total Islamophobic bigot I would regard anything she says as suspect.
Never mind my views on OBL, this is a totally different discussion.
Just for the record – “(Southpawpunch) has already said that a fascist victory in the 2nd World War would have granted India Independence and he would have joined the SS” – is completely without foundation but the writer knows this anyway.
I would refer people to my last post on the previous subject below on the damage that such meaningless abuse causes to any debate
Excatly, lets all just stick to the subject under discussion.
‘I went into a public house to have a pint of beer/The publican he ups and says, ‘We don’t want your sort in here’
You wouldn’t have these attitudes if we had national service, as everybody would have had their turn as a dare I say it a”worker in uniform”
I seem to have let a hare running that shouldn’t be chased.
Southpaw did not say that he wanted germany to win the secoond world war and he would have joined the Waffen SS.
He said he identified with Chandra Bose, founder of the Indian National Army who did make an alliance with Hitler.
My point, perhaps expressed in an exageratedly antagonistic way which I regret and apologise for, is that the logic of this position is anti-semitic and stupid.
My criticism was better expressed by Phil as that SPP is a posturing wazzock.
It was my intention to point out the utter foolishness of SPP’s position that socialists should have been indifferent to whether or not the Nazis won the war, and that perhaps he should be more cautious about praising an Indian antionalist who raised troops for Hitler.
The sensible response by SPP that would have shot my fox would have been to say that he suppported getting help from the Japanese Empire to invade India but he did not support fighting for Hitler.
Bt becasue he refuses to debate with me, he didn’t do so.
It is no surprise that Sue ‘colonialist mindset’ R instinctively thinks of Kipling when the question of the army comes up.
And Dave’s support for ‘peace keeping missions’ is very much in keeping with the imperial ‘civilising missions’ of the British Empire as well.
As for Dave’s idea of ‘democratising the army’, well Orwell wrote on this question in 1939:
‘But if you want military efficiency in the ordinary sense, there is no escaping from the professional soldier, and so long as the professional soldier is in control he will see to it that the army is not democratised. And what is true within the armed forces is true of the nation as a whole; every increase in the strength of the military machine means more power for the forces of reaction. It is possible that some of our more Left-wing jingoes are acting with their eyes open. If they are, they must be aware that the News-Chronicle version of “defence of democracy” leads directly away from democracy, even in the narrow nineteenth-century sense of political liberty, independence of the trade unions and freedom of speech and the press’
That is where Dave’s New Labour vision of the army is going – directly away from democracy.
Our task as socialists in the West is to support campaigns like Military Families Against the War and the wider Stop the War Coalition. The fact that Dave Osler’s blog does not link to either of these campaigns tells you pretty much everything you need to know.
‘Left wing jingoes’ Orwell called people like him back then – and ordinary working class kids who are sent to fight and die by his bloodstained Party for the profits of gigantic oil companies are not helped one iota by his liberal handwringing.
Neither Washington Nor Euston but International Socialism – Bring the Troops Home Now!
For me as a Marxist there are various issues about the armed forces which I find difficult to reconcile. It’s highly unlikely that the British Army will ever be used in any sort of progressive role – it will follow the dictates and priorities of the British ruling class.
On top of that,it’s a volunteer army – whoever applies to join can surely be under no illusions about what it might entail (I can’t believe anyone can think they’ll just go in, learn a trade, then leave without a shot being fired in anger – by or at them). I suspect there will be a psychopathic element amongst these volunteers that actually enjoys killing (and the ordinary squaddie views the SAS like that) but also some working class kids who join out of desperation for something other than a McJob or to get out of the misery of their general existence. No doubt there are some who genuinely believe they are doing something for their country – let’s face it nationalist illusions are pretty rife – and even infect the Left, eh, Comrade Newman?. On the other hand, do we really want the forces to have better equipment, so they can be more efficient at killing people neither they not the rest of us have any quarrel with?
Following on from my last piece, what socialists – or rather, Marxists, have to remember is that we are internationalists. In some circumstances this isn’t easy but let’s be absolutely clear about this, there is nothing that makes the working class (in or out of uniform) from these group of islands more important in any way than working class people anywhere else.
Doug.
My point is that if you had national service with decent pay and conditions, right to strike, etc. etc. you would avoid the average “squaddie mentality” that you describe and which is true as anybody who has had the misfortune to get on the wrong side of these psychos can testify.
I agree we are internationalists and the british working class are no more important than the working class of any other nations.
I apologise if I’m missing something here because I’ve not run accross the idea of democratising the army before but it seems such a stupid idea as to be off the chart.
A military organisation requires that people do as they are ordered to and that those who lead are able to give necessary if unpopular orders. This is not going to work if your Sargeant Major is concerned with re-election.
Worked pretty well in the early days of the Red Army.
This is probably the moment to quote George Orwell’s remark that some things remain true even if they are in the Daily Telegraph..
If you wanted to democratise the army (without instituting conscription..), a practical model would be Australia, where traditionally all officers are or were promoted from the ranks.
“What can the socialists sensibly say to them?” (Armed service personnel.)
I would say that they have every right to a proper reward for the particular work they do, and the means to assert that right. I would also say that I do not agree with the use to which they are being put, and why.
That tells you nothing about a ‘correct’ view of having a standing army at all.
Some here seem to want universal conscription. I personally would prefer actively canvassing potential recruits against enlisting and actively campaigning for education, training and work suited for all young people.
Just because you can find some positive aspects of conscription, or a volunteer service, (arms training perhaps?) that is no reason to support the state, as we currently find it, in arming itself.
Jeff: I don’t know a hell of a lot about the early days of the Red Army but I would be most grateful if you could point me towards some sources.
I do notice that you say the “early days” what went wrong?
If you wanted to democratise the army (without instituting conscription..), a practical model would be Australia, where traditionally all officers are or were promoted from the ranks.
As an Australian…what the hell are you talking about?
I can only assume that you are referring to some sort of romantic WW1 pro-Digger story you heard once.
But even in those days, when Diggers allegedly defied discipline with little fear of punishment, most officers were appointed due to their social status.
Indeed, the Royal Military College, Duntroon, was established in 1911. Governments that intend to promote all officers from the ranks don’t open colleges for military cadets.
632c5r09ow8
ftssoldier.blogspot.com
http://www.edwardsaid.org
What to do with the armed force’s?
Before leaving Iraq, (The Middle East does not have 2 /3 of the world And the whole project
is depend on future public opinion which
Don’t know or control) leave all heavy equipment
behind, reequip the British army with the latest Armour vehicle,
Withdraw completely from “nation building
and focus entirely on Territorial defence.
Increase spending on the navy and air force.
Is not wise to completely neglect your
because you never know who might/would
attack you partially when you have no declared real enemies expect at the present time
the phoney make it up as you go along
Global War on Terror Threat.
If you don’t believe me ask the Romans
Dave here is more servicemans blogs:
http://stcrispinsday.com/blog1/
http://www.the-chosen-man.blogspot.com/
ftssoldier.blogspot.com
http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com/
http://www.eureferendum.blogspot.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faUvdTJRh48
632c5r09ow8
ftssoldier.blogspot.com
http://www.edwardsaid.org
What to do with the armed force’s?
Before leaving Iraq, (The Middle East does not
have 2 /3 of the world And the whole project
is depend on future public opinion which
Don’t know or control)
leave all heavy equipment behind,
reequip the British army with the latest
Armour vehicle,Withdraw completely from “nation building“ and focus entirely on
Territorial defence.
Increase spending on the navy and air force.
Is not wise to completely neglect your
because you never know
who might/would attack you partially
when you have no declared real enemies
expect at the present time
the phoney make it up as you go along
Global War on Terror Threat.
If you don’t believe me ask the Romans
Dave here is more servicemans blogs:
http://stcrispinsday.com/blog1/
http://www.the-chosen-man.blogspot.com/
ftssoldier.blogspot.com
http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com/
http://www.eureferendum.blogspot.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faUvdTJRh4
The late days of the Red Army were horrifically undemocratic but on the other hand quite successful in the end.
Socialists should support universal conscription because it aligns, as best as possible, the interests of soldiers with the interests of the broader population of whatever organisation they are fighting for. The reason democracy in the army can seem ridiculous now is that under present circumstances it’s easy to imagine that soldiers would vote against, say, attacking a death camp, in order to save their lives, even at the cost of the thousands inside, just out of an instinct for self-preservation. They might be less willing to do that if they considered their position not just a job but some sort of morally justified duty, or they felt more of a community of interest with the people they were fighting for.
I’m sceptical of radical democracy in the military because even in a conscripted army the interests of the soldiers, as individuals, and those of the people they are defending must always diverge. Obviously militaries can try to narrow that difference rhetorically, persuade the soldiers to subordinate their well-being to the good of the country (or the working class, or whatever). The fact is that as long as people have to fight, they’ll only be effectively persuaded to risk their lives by fear – of execution, of violence, of prosecution, of poverty. An army of saints might be able to be democratic.
My brother-in-law has just been in a Brummie Hospital – he broke some bones on holiday – in the same place where they treat Army personel back from Iraq and Afganistan.
My blister’s comments on them is that they are mostly extremely young.
I think that as rule you have to appreciate the individual courage of these army types, not agree with the politics of what they are doing, and so on. And so forth.
Mind you, as still a bit ultra-left, I really don’t like coppers: they’ve usually had the time to absorb a reactionary ideology.
632c5r09ow8
ftssoldier.blogspot.com
http://www.edwardsaid.org
What to do with the armed force’s?
Before leaving Iraq, (The Middle East does not have
2 /3 of the worlds oil And the whole project
is depend on future public opinion which
Don’t know or control) leave all heavy equipment behind, reequip the British
army with the latest Armoured vehicle
Withdraw completely from “nation building
and focus entirely on Territorial defence.
Increase spending on the navy and air force.
Is not wise to completely neglect your
because you never know who might/would
attack you partially when you have no declared
real enemies expect at the present time
the phoney make it up as you go along
Global War on Terror Threat.
If you don’t believe me ask the Romans
Dave here is more servicemans blogs:
http://stcrispinsday.com/blog1/
http://www.the-chosen-man.blogspot.com/
ftssoldier.blogspot.com
http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com/
http://www.eureferendum.blogspot.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faUvdTJRh48
Not a penny, not a man!
Poor daft Paddy Garcia with his parody of the Marxist attitude towards standing armies. Now to be fair the historical view of both the Second and Third Internationals, developed by LDT in his Proletarian Military Policy, was to favour universal conscription which was counter-posed to a fully mercenary (voluteer) army.
But at the same time socialists always opposed voting for any military credits in the various legislative assemblies. In other words socialists opposed any standing army regardless of its method of recruitment and training. Calls for universal conscription then were calls directed against the bourgeois elites who exempted their own offspring.
The problem for Paddy arises when a war comes around that is popular as for example WW1 or WW2. Then universal conscription comes about and if the left had followed Paddys advice would have been disrmed so to speak. Why? Simply because each of these wars was conducted for aims that were those of the boss class not of the workers despite being popular!
Simply supporting conscription then violates the principle of never giving any support for the bourgeois state – which the policies developed by Engels and Trotsky did not do I note, and delivers the working class to the bosses to do as they wilt. But this is what happens when a half understood policy is taken out of historical context by a fool.
One aspect of the British Army that is oft remarked upon by those with experience of that body is that the SAS is the only unit dominated by serving men rather than officers. This situation arises because officers are only permitted one tour in that unit while the enrolled men, all of whom are NCO’s btw, can remain formore extended tours. We have then the curious phenomenon then that the SAS is clearly a hardened reactionary body employed as such, but is overwhelmingly ‘democratic’ in its peculiar form of partinost. Perhaps this is the kind of ‘democratised’ army Dave wants.
I have blogged today about Iraq Veterans Against the War in Washington, D.C. getting arrested in uniform at yesterday’s anti-war demo:
http://unknownconscience.blogspot.com/2007/09/iraq-veterans-arrested-at-dc-anti-war.html