The Worker's Vanguard: Para-militarism, anyone?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&gmid=37825

I came across this on RevLeft. While for the most part I believe those class-traitorous cosmopolitan pigdogs can dig their own graves and shoot themselves, this idea of creating a force of dedicated political soldiers to safeguard rallies, meetings, and strikes, seems like an invaluable tactic in gaining the appearance of a solid, immobile political movement that cannot be intimidated by police or laws intended to preserve the decadence and opulence of pathetic and useless capitalist leadership. What do you think? If a nationalist alternative was created, what name would they go by? What would they wear? How would they be led? Most importantly, how best could they serve the RSF and people, nation and Motherland? If enough people like this initiative, I may start our own equivalent group on the forum.

Sounds good to me. The one problem is that there haven't really been rallies thus far which are both nationalist and socialist. They're always either cosmopolitan (for the socialists) or capitalist (for the nationalists). I'm not going to risk my ass for one or the other. When we are enough of a force that we can stage rallies worth defending, then that's a different story.

Xanthochroid wrote:Sounds good to me. The one problem is that there haven't really been rallies thus far which are both nationalist and socialist. They're always either cosmopolitan (for the socialists) or capitalist (for the nationalists). I'm not going to risk my ass for one or the other. When we are enough of a force that we can stage rallies worth defending, then that's a different story.

True enough, but the RSF will hopefully go mainstream, and a group of political soldiers defending the cause wil give the newborn movement a feeling of finality, unity, and strength.
Anyway, I was thinking that the group could wear balaclavas, black military fatigues, and black armbands printed with a symbol similar to my avatar.

Before we go any further, I shake your hand for saying "balaclava" instead of "ski mask". I always love people who actually realize that the English language has a specific noun, verb, adjective, and adverb for literally everything for which we use multiple words or slang to describe.

I like your uniform idea. At first I thought that the all black style would convey anarchism (not that's a problem, just an observation), but then again I figured, the fatigues and armbands will be enough to counter that so long as no one dons a ballcap, hooded sweatshirt, or sunglasses.

( I think my last post was deleted..)

A security force to protect members from police, political opponents, etc is definitely needed.

The uniform though is not going to attract mainstream, the more likely effect is that it will cause intimidation and the group would probably be labeled as Nazis/Racists.

Other than that, the focus should first be on acquiring enough supporters for a rally to actually be held, rather than thinking about what a future security force would wear.

Iron Vanguard wrote:this idea of creating a force of dedicated political soldiers to safeguard rallies, meetings, and strikes, seems like an invaluable tactic in gaining the appearance of a solid, immobile political movement that cannot be intimidated by police or laws intended to preserve the decadence and opulence of pathetic and useless capitalist leadership. What do you think?

In my opinion, it's vital for socialist movements to refrain from establishing specialized classes within their organizational structure. The notion of training a certain group of activists explicitly for security duties is reminiscent of the fascistic Sturmabteilung and should be avoided. All dedicated members of revolutionary organizations should be expected to defend their groups, should such a moment arise.

The habit of political parties to retain security forces was largely a result of the political street fights of the inter-war period, anyway. If such a situation occurs again, I agree with Celtiberian that all physically able members should be willing to fight for their beliefs. Besides, think about how it would look, say, on the evening news. On the one side, a regiment of jackbooted neofascists. On the other, not uniformed 'commies', but the people. Not wearing uniforms makes any potential confrontation look not like a riot between two groups of radicals, but like the defense of the people by the people that it is.

In addition, some countries, e.g. England, have a standing law against political uniforms.

RedSun wrote:The habit of political parties to retain security forces was largely a result of the political street fights of the inter-war period, anyway. If such a situation occurs again, I agree with Celtiberian that all physically able members should be willing to fight for their beliefs. Besides, think about how it would look, say, on the evening news. On the one side, a regiment of jackbooted neofascists. On the other, not uniformed 'commies', but the people. Not wearing uniforms makes any potential confrontation look not like a riot between two groups of radicals, but like the defense of the people by the people that it is.

In addition, some countries, e.g. England, have a standing law against political uniforms.

On the other hand, a confrontation of political activists not wearing uniforms looks like an uneducated riot of drunkards and fools, where as a uniformed majority looks like a mass movement of solidarity and strength. I too agree that it is important to have the entire movement be ready to fight, and having an paramilitary group ready to train and organize them would certainly assist "the defense of the people by the people". Also, do you really think a barely controllable popular uprising could defeat any serious military? The revolution cannot be uncontrolled, barbaric, and uncoordinated, but instead must be both tactical and efficient.

It can be tactical and efficient without looking like a paramilitary organisation. Putting uniforms on our comrades separates them from the people they're trying to promote solidarity with (and putting balaclavas on them makes them look more like criminals). There should certainly be marks of unity, e.g. badges, armbands, buttons (although I'm sure giving out armbands will invite Nazi comparisons from all directions), but I think appearing as a unified popular front will better convey our message.

As for looking like 'an uneducated riot of drunkards and fools', I think the onus is on our comrades not to behave like an uneducated riot of drunkards and fools. Our self-discipline and honour should come through in our ability to defend ourselves effectively with a minimum of violence and collateral damage (and our willingness to clean up after said collateral damage). Such responsible and cooperative behaviour will be good practice for living in a socialist society.

RedSun wrote:It can be tactical and efficient without looking like a paramilitary organisation. Putting uniforms on our comrades separates them from the people they're trying to promote solidarity with (and putting balaclavas on them makes them look more like criminals). There should certainly be marks of unity, e.g. badges, armbands, buttons (although I'm sure giving out armbands will invite Nazi comparisons from all directions), but I think appearing as a unified popular front will better convey our message.

As for looking like 'an uneducated riot of drunkards and fools', I think the onus is on our comrades not to behave like an uneducated riot of drunkards and fools. Our self-discipline and honour should come through in our ability to defend ourselves effectively with a minimum of violence and collateral damage (and our willingness to clean up after said collateral damage). Such responsible and cooperative behaviour will be good practice for living in a socialist society.

Fair enough. I do think that at least armbands should be used. In order to distance our arm apparel from that of Hitler, we can have the primary color not be red (Black perhaps?). Although you have won me over, this begs the question of how you will organize and discipline the revolution in order to prevent it from devolving into a dishonorable riot of drunkards and fools.

What?? You want me to explain how my ideas would work in reality??!!

Unfortunately, I don't really know how to train people in that manner. I don't want to drill them and have them march in formation, but I'm not sure of the extent to which a good speech on the virtues of self-discipline and cooperation will suffice for that. It depends, to a certain degree, on the extent to which the workers who join us have those qualities already. I wish I had better ideas than that, but I don't.

Iron Vanguard wrote:On the other hand, a confrontation of political activists not wearing uniforms looks like an uneducated riot of drunkards and fools, where as a uniformed majority looks like a mass movement of solidarity and strength. I too agree that it is important to have the entire movement be ready to fight, and having an paramilitary group ready to train and organize them would certainly assist "the defense of the people by the people". Also, do you really think a barely controllable popular uprising could defeat any serious military? The revolution cannot be uncontrolled, barbaric, and uncoordinated, but instead must be both tactical and efficient.

Since when does a uniform distinguish whether a group is well organized or not?
And I do not see how that relates to a uprising at all, if anything you should want to not wear uniforms in such a situation... The problems that popular uprisings face have nothing to do with uniforms, it is other logistic matters. Mainly the fact they lack the training, and equipment a national military has.

RedSun wrote:It can be tactical and efficient without looking like a paramilitary organisation. Putting uniforms on our comrades separates them from the people they're trying to promote solidarity with (and putting balaclavas on them makes them look more like criminals). There should certainly be marks of unity, e.g. badges, armbands, buttons (although I'm sure giving out armbands will invite Nazi comparisons from all directions), but I think appearing as a unified popular front will better convey our message.

As for looking like 'an uneducated riot of drunkards and fools', I think the onus is on our comrades not to behave like an uneducated riot of drunkards and fools. Our self-discipline and honour should come through in our ability to defend ourselves effectively with a minimum of violence and collateral damage (and our willingness to clean up after said collateral damage). Such responsible and cooperative behaviour will be good practice for living in a socialist society.

Could be argued though that dressing in uniforms could help instill the discipline needed to keep our rallies from decaying into riots

Why is a uniform essential to organizing a group? It could certainly be argued that uniforms increase the strength of intra-group solidarity, but as was already elaborated here, this bears a cost. Did the Bolshevik revolutionaries wear uniforms?

Composure, proficiency, and recognized unity (perhaps accentuated via some external artifact(s)) are the relevant ingredients. The party is constructed so as to lead an organized revolt, not to buoy atop a restless wave of social upheaval. A conscious party will produce a conscious uprising.

It's not a bad idea, but I worry about the possible harmful effects of a small, relatively powerful gun-wielding group being alienated from the majority of the proletariat. That's not to suggest a paramilitary group is always alienated from the majority of the proletariat, but it seems very likely such a group would become so.

I should hope they wouldn't be wielding guns. I think what is meant here is something akin (though I hate to make the comparison) to the SA.

I don't think that such a group would be a good idea.

Such a group would only be a good idea if it became readily apparent to all involved, including the mainstream media, that the party was actually under physical threat. Until then, no.