[Ombrageux]

I am just highlighting the elements they have in common: nothing is more Statist, bureaucratic and undemocratic than the military (in all countries). In this they tend to resemble Leninist practice, I am not talking about whatever abstract ideals they may have. The institution is a complete rebuke to the more dogmatic laissez faire free marketers who also, in the U.S., often idolize the military and "the troops".

[Potemkin]

A military, by definition, is internally a tyrannical bureaucracy with no market incentives for performance. Leninist states were essentially military-bureaucratic states (sometimes properly "armies with countries"). In that they were quite similar to the U.S. military, which by nature is completely different from market-based or liberal democratic institutions.

You're probably thinking of the 'barracks communism' which Marx derided, yet which most nations with 'actual existing socialism' tended to degenerate into during the 20th century. Marx recognised this collective, authoritarian nature of the military-industrial complex, but did not see it as the nucleus of a future socialist society, but as a potential blockage against the emergence of such a society. At best, it can lead only to a form of 'barracks communism', and we've all seen how dreary and sterile that turned out to be.

[KurtFF8]

In this they tend to resemble Leninist practice, I am not talking about whatever abstract ideals they may have.

You've clearly never read State and Revolution by Lenin.

I think you're confusing "statism" with socialism. This is a typical error that anti-socialists make: call state functions socialist when they actually serve capital.

[Ombrageux]

My original post mentioned "State-Socialism" and I later mentioned "Leninist practice".

[...]

[KurtFF8]

My point stands

[Negotiator]

A large percentage of the working class in America (at least the United States) already owns arms

LOL nope they really havent.

Just the peashooters called guns.

Not the real things like cannons, tanks, interceptors and bombers, ships, and rockets.

[KurtFF8]

Just the peashooters called guns.

Guns fall under that category still though

[firedfromthecircus]

OP. Why would the military automatically defend the propertied classes from a socialist uprising?

After all, the majority of the people who have the most to lose from such an uprising wouldn't piss on a serving soldier if he was on fire.

[Decky]

Guns fall under that category still though

Guns alone would be fairly useless against a modern millitary with tanks bombers and artilery. It is now more important that ever before (and it was prety important in the past anyway) that the millitary is bought over to the side of the revolution rather than seeing it as a peoples war against the state and its agents including the millitary.

[Vera Politica]

This is true Decky, but for argument's sake - even the full engagement of the American military would be hard pressed to quell a national uprising in their own country and occupy the relevant urban centers.

[Jackal]

Don't military personnel swear to defend the country from any threat, foreign or domestic? What if the majority of the country felt like the ruling class was a "threat"?

[Potemkin]

This is true Decky, but for argument's sake - even the full engagement of the American military would be hard pressed to quell a national uprising in their own country and occupy the relevant urban centers.

Indeed. In fact, Iraq (and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan) are examples of just how difficult it is for a regular army to quell a populist guerilla uprising. Having said that, however, any workers' uprising which failed to gain the support of a significant part of the national army (say, at least a third) would almost certainly fail. The crucial moment of the February Revolution in Tsarist Russia in 1917 was when the elements of the Tsarist army which were stationed in Moscow and Petrograd went over to the side of the revolutionaries. From that moment on, the Tsarist system was doomed.

[Lensky1917]

The OP hasn't contributed his two cents since the beginning of this thread, but it seems he was making a point of what he 'thought' would happen if communists miraculously gained power through the tools of the ruling class.

Well my question is simple: suppose one day your social-democrats/reformists idea to impose socialism by democratics mean become reality

Suppose people democratically elect an anti-capitalist leader and private property is abolished

Do you really think we will stand still and shut up?? Why do you think the army simply will standstill instead to immediatly restore the old order

If communists gained so-called 'legitimate' power in this fashion through the democratic practice and votes of the people, than I don't see how the military could react according to the oaths they take upon joining.

Your oaths do not bind you to serve the socioeconomic trend currently in effect upon enlisting. Like it or not, you have to serve whomever is in charge whether they're Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Communists, Socialists, Fascists, Nazis, Anarchists, etc.

[KurtFF8]

Indeed. In fact, Iraq (and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan) are examples of just how difficult it is for a regular army to quell a populist guerilla uprising. Having said that, however, any workers' uprising which failed to gain the support of a significant part of the national army (say, at least a third) would almost certainly fail. The crucial moment of the February Revolution in Tsarist Russia in 1917 was when the elements of the Tsarist army which were stationed in Moscow and Petrograd went over to the side of the revolutionaries. From that moment on, the Tsarist system was doomed.

Indeed. And if a worker revolution didn't get the support of the army, there would be a bigger problem at hand with the gaining of support, considering the army in a place like the United States is overwhelmingly made up of working class folks.

[Negotiator]

Guns fall under that category still though

My point was : People with ordinary guns have not much chance against a modern army. They will be rolled over by tanks, bombed by bombers, shot by drones, machine gunned by soldiers in full body armor, and so on.

[KurtFF8]

But the army isn't some abstract outside force: it is made up mainly of the working class itself. Sections of the army, in a "violent uprising" would likely not join with the working class (this goes with police, who are working class, yet act directly for the interest of capital), but the majority of folks in the army would not likely fight their own. Not even just out of class interest, but American's have a strong opposition to the idea of using the army against our domestic population.

[CounterChaos]

Suppose people democratically elect an anti-capitalist leader and private property is abolished

All branches of the military follow the orders of the commander-in-chief.

I am not going to go into the obvious that he joined the Navy is in the Army and works for the Air Force..

I am retired military...Unfortunately I joined this forum too late to comment on this timely.

1. Elections take time and any hint of coup d'etat would be detected early.

2. Officers come from the same schools that you went to, or are attending...

3. The military will be far too busy dealing with the various militias springing up in the mid-west and elsewhere-the true threat...

4. Soldiers vote and participate in society like everyone else.

Of course I should add that historically the military has shown contempt for totalitarianism. Limiting authority to public and not private life would in my opinion be accepted by the military establishment.

.........Cheers