Private Joy
(sorry about the latenes of this post-as well as it's shoddiness. Yes, this is another Red-Ken post. No, I am not a communist. Yes I was tired when I typed this. No I am not fomenting revolution. Yes I did skip this weeks segment of 'ask a commie.' Yes I will keep writing these silly things.)
Private Joy: Communism and the military.
Many of you probably noticed that in most depictions of communism, as well as tons of historical imagery, communism seems to be eminently militaristic. Big red banners, hammers and sickles, and sweet Svetlana the sniper in her sharp red uniform.
But uniform fetishism aside (in both senses of the term) I have a bit of advice for my fellow reds out there about all of this before we even enter into discussion.
The advice is to banish that thought. Bury it. Be rid of it completely and consign it to the dustbin of history.
Yes, Yes, again the aesthetic might have some kinky little thrill to it but uniformity and conformity of that nature is almost the antithesis of proper communism and an unhealthy obsession with statues, flags, uniforms, and symbols is more a sign of our opposite number, you know… that 'ism' that starts with an 'F.'
The truth is Communism should probably borrow some of the suspicion that our founding fathers had towards standing armies. Their reluctance with regards to large powerful militaries comprises the true origin of the second amendment by providing the armaments for the state organized and dissolvable militias' that they preferred over proper military structure. Though for the purposes of the revolution the Congress opted for the creation of a regular continental army, I think it could be argued that the founders were hoping they could return to the militia model as, after the revolution, they would hope not to have to fight more wars.
By older definitions (as opposed to the modern use of the term by right wing radicals) a militia tends to be all able bodied citizens of a community that can be called to arms which represents a more participatory solution to the concept of an armed force. This is not without somewhat updated modern antecedents as Switzerland seems to have a system in place where all its citizens are expected to take part in its defense and it is this example that I would suggest be used. By having a professional and large active military the temptation becomes too great to use it to intercede in external affairs.
There are counter arguments to this of course but most only apply if one fails to update the term militia to accommodate the modern elements of warfare. The technological and social paradigms required for the undertaking of defense in the modern world may well be difficult but surely a National Guard organization would be adequate to most tasks of actual defense if we would abandon the need to continually project American force abroad. It is worth noting that many of these expeditions end up being an effort towards advantaging some specific and unpopular economic interest that has been painted over in red, white and blue.
Sadly it seems that the United States is going to the absolute opposite end of the spectrum with a mercenary military rooted in the idea of massive private profit and probably in the idea of deniability and secrecy. It removes even the need to ratchet up the Great Wurlitzer of PR to drum up popular support for a conflict that there would be little interest in otherwise. We are alienated from the most extreme actions of our own countries actions now to a degree that exceeds even the secret wars fought by special operations and the cloak of secrecy on those regular daily actions our military takes part in.
The Switzerland option may run into another difficulty of a sort recognized far earlier than the American Revolution. An ancient problem that was (and may yet be) a universal rule of warfare that put simply states that seasoned troops will almost always fare better than recruits in battle.
This may actually be better and worse than it actually is. With respect to ancient warfare no amount of simple training could season a legionnaire adequately for actual combat. The best possibility would be to provide the discipline to perform a task long enough to develop the skills and experience needed to survive and succeed on the battlefield.
It is tempting to think that things have changed because we are no longer as reliant on heavily formation driven units that make use of long spears and shield walls and creeping advances smashing against the enemy forces, wherein a lack of discipline or fear of battle could fragmentate organized lines of soldiers and break up the ranks resulting in vulnerability and defeat. But fire discipline does have its corollary to this as the ability to keep ones cool in combat and aim during a firefight does require a rote repetition during a variety of circumstances.
Still, technology has always been a high ground as has ability to produce those things required for war both of which require a division of sorts to have an effective fighting force fielded which leads us right back into the problem of an effective military.
But again, the Swiss do make exceptions to allow for people having other possible contributions and capacities to such an effort so I would again lean towards their example in this case.