Can someone explain to me how the military would work in a classless stateless moneyless society?

Can someone explain to me how the military would work in a classless stateless moneyless society?

Other urls found in this thread:

flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/iron.html

killer robots

Redpill me on this

Decentralized People's Armies/Militias made up of members of Communes and co-ordinated by Worker's Councils. You don't need a State for that, and there's no need for wage based compensation as it's composed of members of the actual proletariat, not a separate specialized class of soldiers like it is today.

flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/iron.html

I love Les Miserables but what's the deal with Victor Hugo?

Was he /OurGuy/ or just a a run-of-the-mill bourgeois parliamentary democratic revolutionary?

This.
Of course, I don't think it's really possible to have a war under a classles society.

...

I don't disagree with you, but it can't hurt to speculate on possibilities of ways we can organize under Communism, or to at least make educated guesses.

the army is the state's means of class repression.
no state, no classes, no army.

It wouldn't. Who needs a military when there are no other militaries to fight with?

OK, I guess that makes sense, I am wondering who would be in charge of building the planes and other war equipment?

I am asking because I think if there ever was a serious revolution in America and the military complex was dismantled then the Chinese and the Russian forces would strike us immediately.

the revolution can only be worldwide to achieve gommunism

The same people as before.

Are you just suggesting that guns be ubiquitous enough that the need for any kind of organized fighting force would be pointless? Because that's mildly retarded, but I'm willing to hear you out if I'm misrepresenting you. Mind you, even with the abolition of private property I don't see why there wouldn't be a need for self-defense, unless you're talking about a situation where we have achieved absolute World Communism, which I'd say is definitely a ways off.


The workers themselves. Also, if we had a revolution tomorrow it's not like everyone apart of our former military apparatus would disappear, hell, if a significant portion of the military didn't side with the revolutionaries I'd say we wouldn't have even won this hypothetical revolution at all. Anyway, just because there's no State doesn't mean there's no organization or coordination, if anything a Communist society is one which uses it's resources and assets far more wisely then a Capitalist one.

International defense contractors?

I think he meant scientists, engineers, and workers.

Yeah

No, I am saying that there would be nobody left to fight with. An armed community is all that eould be required. A proper military would be a waste of resources.

cont'd


Obviously. Communism is not possible in just one country.

Agreed, at least it's not possible in the long run, and tends to regress into some kind of State Capitalism, but the idea that there wouldn't be pockets of Capitalism, or that this revolutionary process would be instantaneous on a Global level, that we wouldn't need to figure out ways to organize ourselves in the mean time, is perhaps overly optimistic. I mean it's [current year] and Capitalism is insanely pervasive in it's Global hegemony, but even today there are still pockets of pre-Capitalist and non-Capitalist organization, very few are Socialist, but calling the DPRK Capitalist is a stretch. My point is, a hegemony so complete that self-defense, and some kind of organized (though decentralized) self-defense would be pointless seems kind of Idealist.

That is not what "idealist" means. I think the term that you are looking for is "wishful thinking." That aside, the reason that global communism precludes war is that wars require certain conditions to be present which would be impossible in communism.

Firstly, there needs to be a motivation for war. Wars are fought with a purpose in mind, specifically to allow a certain group of people to steal labor and resources from some other group of people. Dress it in whatever religious or moral nonsense you want; it always boils down to theft. Armies do not form and risk life and limb without the expectation of accomplishing something tangible. Communism provides the means for individuals to acquire more goods with far less labor and danger than would be required to try to steal it from someone else. Furthermore, the lack of scarcity would preclude the desperation that would be necessary to spur a large society to organized warfare.

Secondly, there is the matter of fielding an army to attack someone else. Without capital providing equipment and critical resources with the expectation of profit there would be nothing to build an army with. What would lure men from their relatively easy lives to one of taking orders anenduring hardships for someone else? Soldiers must be coerced into an army, and without poverty or great means there would be nothing to do so.

Thirdly, a fully-armed population makes dominance by anything less than a modern capitalist army exceedingly difficult. Without an overwhelming material advantage over the population to be occupied, controling it is impossible. It would be a fool's gambit even if an army could be raised.