====================================================================== 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
