Trotskyists - how would you deal with national defence?

37 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ablokeimet
Offline
Joined: 30-04-13
Jul 2 2014 06:01
S. Artesian wrote:
Ablokeimet wrote:
THE WORKERS' BOMB

The workers' bomb is deepest red,
It fills the bosses' hearts with dread.
We look on it quite cheerfully,
It's not like Uncle Sam's, you see.

...[/i]

Didn't this first appear in Proletarian Democracy? Credit where credit is due, comrade.

A song by this title was one I read about several times during the 1980s. I couldn't find the words, though. All I had was the tune, the last two lines of the chorus, a couple of specifically British lines (which I didn't keep) of the second verse and the first two lines of the last verse. So, one day (I can't remember exactly when but would have been at least 20 years ago), I decided I'd have to write it. So I did.

Therefore, it wouldn't surprise me at all if a version of it had appeared in print before this. I'd like to see how much the versions resemble each other.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jul 5 2014 21:34

Sorry, I confused your lyrics with this:

http://proletariandemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/pd-operation.jpg

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Jul 7 2014 00:11

I know Stalinsky has been removed. But something tells me he will return sometime in the future. In the meanwhile, he's slowly preparing for us....

midnightsteven
Offline
Joined: 22-02-08
Jul 7 2014 01:10

Glad to see we are..um, debating the urgent issues of the day (even if I took a sort of guilty pleasure in reading this thread nostalgically.

Seriously for just a moment (at risk of troll-feeding): if you DO have nuclear weapons and a large arms industry how are you going to defend your revolution?

I mean seriously. What you are you going to do with nuclear weapons? Use them to destroy cities full of exploited people that you should win to joining the revolution? Or use them to intimidate the inhabitants of some capitalist power's territory so that they seek protection from that state instead of feeling that they have the room to experiment with new social forms and can afford the risk of withdrawing support and resources from that state?

As for the large arms industry, that any territory, city, region that overthrows capitalist rule will need to defend itself is clear. But doing so in a prolonged war is not going to happen in a world with drones and nukes (see the paragraph above). The only hope is winning over the troops of an attacking capitalist power and the people in that territory, so while holding out with self-defense for as long as possible can be a matter of life and death, a large arms industry won't necessarily help.

The Iraqi resistance, the Taliban, and similar urban and rural based forces are no models, but they have shown that without a large arms industry you can hold out. Their weakness is that what they are fighting is no better and in many respects worse than what they are fighting against.

The Zapatistas have held out for 20 years now and not only do they not have a large arms industry but they have very few arms as far as I can tell from accounts. But they are able to control, organize and self-govern territories.

And that large arms industry and nukes did not really keep the Soviet Union in business now did it?

Reddebrek's picture
Reddebrek
Offline
Joined: 4-01-12
Jul 7 2014 14:29

^Strongly agreed.

midnightsteven wrote:
Glad to see we are..um, debating the urgent issues of the day (even if I took a sort of guilty pleasure in reading this thread nostalgically.

Seriously for just a moment (at risk of troll-feeding): if you DO have nuclear weapons and a large arms industry how are you going to defend your revolution?

I mean seriously. What you are you going to do with nuclear weapons? Use them to destroy cities full of exploited people that you should win to joining the revolution? Or use them to intimidate the inhabitants of some capitalist power's territory so that they seek protection from that state instead of feeling that they have the room to experiment with new social forms and can afford the risk of withdrawing support and resources from that state?

As for the large arms industry, that any territory, city, region that overthrows capitalist rule will need to defend itself is clear. But doing so in a prolonged war is not going to happen in a world with drones and nukes (see the paragraph above). The only hope is winning over the troops of an attacking capitalist power and the people in that territory, so while holding out with self-defense for as long as possible can be a matter of life and death, a large arms industry won't necessarily help.

I think a lot of this tankie emphasis on big armies and the like stem from their lack of knowledge of the Soviet Union. In the October Revolution and the Civil war followed a lot of supposed Communists seem to have bought into the myth of the invincible Red Army. In reality the Red Guards/army with a few exceptions like the Kronstadt sailors and Latvian rifles had a very poor military record. I think that was mainly due to the Bolsheviks insisting on leading an army just like any other national army with a Central Command and officer structure despite neither having any military experience.

Red Army units with ex Tsarist officers tended to perform better then those controlled by Bolshevik members. On several occasions White armies managed to push deep into Bolshevik territory even going so far as to besiege Petrograd.

The Bolsheviks only survived because the men in the allied armies, British, French and American mutinied and refused to attack. And because the Whites were so unpopular they couldn't control the territories they seized from the Red Army. In fact the Russian peasant seems to have been a more challenging foe than the Red Army.

Quote:
And that large arms industry and nukes did not really keep the Soviet Union in business now did it?

If anything it would seem the Soviet Unions economy being so heavily tied to the steel eaters, arms manufacturers and heavy industry contributed to its economic disintegration, Curious how none of the Tankie's mention that, but since that was true of both Lenin and Stalin I guess even they realise its pointless to blame the "Revisionists" for that like they do everything else.

Gepetto's picture
Gepetto
Offline
Joined: 28-10-12
Jul 7 2014 18:52
Reddebrek wrote:
In the October Revolution and the Civil war followed a lot of supposed Communists seem to have bought into the myth of the invincible Red Army. In reality the Red Guards/army with a few exceptions like the Kronstadt sailors and Latvian rifles had a very poor military record. I think that was mainly due to the Bolsheviks insisting on leading an army just like any other national army with a Central Command and officer structure despite neither having any military experience.

Red Army units with ex Tsarist officers tended to perform better then those controlled by Bolshevik members. On several occasions White armies managed to push deep into Bolshevik territory even going so far as to besiege Petrograd.

And sadly they got their asses kicked at Warsaw in 1920 sad