National Armies

Why do national armies (some of which still are staffed with draftees) still exist and how can we move towards a future in which their existence has no place?

Destroy Nationalism and Borders.

How r u going to protect socialism from imperialists without army?


Nationalism can be leftist

The question was how to get rid of National Armies and it is to do away with the concept of Nations itself.

...

Why would you remove nations just to start the cycle of society again? The only thing anarchy would create would be a reset in power. A commune would conquer all the others and become a new kind of Roman Empire and then we're all fucked.

Nice meme

Holla Forums please go

Not what I ment. I ment that without a centralized power, the power a community owns would be reset. We would probably not turn to savages, but it would leave room for someone else to take the power. Like a new empire. Power must always be held by someone or collectively. Removing power completely is retarded.


Pic related

The power would be within the communes not destroyed entirely, you are thinking anarchy as some kinda lawless wild land. It isn't some feudal system where lords make the decision, there is no hierarchy to dictate people to go to war, most people don't just want to die for some abstract reason beyond survival and since by then we won't be savages resources can be distributed amongst each other.

The problem with national armies is that they ostensibly exist because of other national armies.

The vanishing of nation-states are a precondition for world peace.

There were no states in feudalism yet it was a very warlike period and the formation of nation states actually avoided wars because representatives of large territories could come together and be diplomats.

There are a lot of other variations that could create war. Say there is lack of recources in one commune and the ones next to it won't share. The starving commune has more iron to create weapons. It then invaded and conquers the ones denying it recources. They see how successful they were and continue their conquering. People are dumb and love power. If they felt this power they would take it

You are stating very situational scenarios as if it will defiantly occur without a doubt.
Sociopaths love power and there you go again assuming we will all be savages breaking stones over eachothers head for dominance.

No, they like to abuse power and toy with people.

Everbody likes to be in charge of something and be responsible of something. Of course a bakery apprentice wants to be in charge of his own apprentices some day.

If they didn't love power why do they like to abuse it?
And in the commune everyone is in charge of something and has power in their commune.

"Power" loses its meaning when it's not applied in comparison. If you drive a Toyota while everybody in your town has a Ferrari you are poor, even though you are probably rich compared to someone in Somalia.

I'm trying to say when everybody has the same amount of power people won't feel it and will strive to achieve a higher standing.

You are spooked as fuck, buddy. Humans would not be so cooperative and create civilization as we know it today if all they did was trump each other constantly. If you were, we would be a lot more back-stabbing then we are today and the only reason why we are today is because capitalism encourages this behavior in us to constantly compete amongst each other. If it was nullified then the concept of having to out-rank each other dissolves.

Of course. But just like societies go through historical stages (slavery > feudalism > capitalism > socialism), so does the framework in which they exist (dynastic empires > nation-states > world republic?). We're not "going back" to dynastic empires.

Say, you are Turkey.
You're entire economic system is based on the army. You have problems in your east, cause Kurds want a piece of Land for themselves and fight you. You then start provoking Greece, in order to change the focus of your people from the east to the west.
Thus, Greece has to have an army because it's unsure of what you may do.

For Greece to have an army, it needs to by guns. So, Germany, France, Russia, US, are gonna make guns. But Greece is too small so, the big countries need to keep their guns moving, so, they start proxie wars and keep destroying production, cause capitalism.

And that is why we have armies.

CAPITALISM.

I am for removal of nation-state in favor of rational-legal cosmopolitan state personally. In such a state, national armies would serve no purpose(against whom will the war be?) aside from repression of terrorism and other forms of organized civil violence and would be reduced to minimum. Opposition to nations does not necessarily entail opposition to statehood.

I agree with completely. The tankie is right tbh. Your commune will have different kinds of people and more than one of those people will want more power and another one might want to rally people with his/her oration and 1+1=war. And even if conflict could be avoided in a commune for say, a few generations, there will be a time when the new generation will think differently and create conflict. People have fond ideas of small communities but in reality it becomes a family vs family situation very fast. The communes would have to be big enough so everyone isn't friends with everyone and they also needs to be a sizable distance between two communes so warfare is not practical (or so close it doesn't matter).
I'm not even talking about population growth and the deviants that poison the communities…

A "rational-legal cosmopolitan" state still is a nation-state. For all intents and purposes, contemporary Western countries ARE "rational-legal cosmopolitan" states whose understanding of nationality is civic, not ethnic.

I can understand conflict being a factor and it's not that people will be passive to the point that it will become liberal havens to allow power mongers. Knowledge will be pass down to prevent such dissent into despotic behavior, but just like under a nation or state, change is bound to happen. Maybe something else will arise to challenge everything already known, only time will really tell.