09.02.2006
Marching towards self-organisation
Emily Bransom reports on a new website set up by disgruntled soldiers
Trade unions are not the be-all and end-all when it comes to the struggle for socialist society. Trade union consciousness is the consciousness of a slave class. Only if our class can be won to champion every struggle against oppression and to fight for extreme democracy can it form itself into a ruling class. That is why Marxism is vital.
The armed forces are based on the systematic denial of many existing social rights. Soldiers are kept isolated in barracks and special estates and conditioned as unquestioning, dehumanised killing machines, trained to obey orders instantly. To maintain that kind of discipline means that the state bureaucracy and the top brass bitterly and instinctively oppose any steps towards self-organisation by the rank and file "¦ and that, of course, is exactly what we want.
Our aim is clear. We wish to see the democratisation of the existing armed forces. We also want the abolition of the standing army and the arming of the mass of the population through the organisation of a people's militia.
Of course, these aims are far from incompatible. Indeed they are complementary. The arming of the masses - no matter how primitively - breathes courage and rebellion into the rank and file of the armed forces. In a period of profound political or economic crisis, demands will be raised in the army for the election of officers and for unrestricted political debate. That way the discipline of the old armed forces dissolves and conditions are created for whole units to defect over to our side.
However, both arming the masses and democratising the armed forces must be seen as processes. And, as such, they will almost certainly have the most modest of beginnings. In the case of workers, the picket line is an embryonic militia. The fist and the boot are our first weapons. In the case of the army, it is the organisation of the rank and file - even for nothing more than expressing complaints about bullying, poor equipment and bad pay and conditions.
That is why any move that even hints of rank-and-file organisation within her majesty's armed forces is something that should be studied carefully; and especially, in light of Military Families Against the War and widespread army unhappiness with Afghanistan and Iraq, should be supported - critically, of course. Even when a small group comes together for camaraderie and mutual support, this can lead to questioning and thus help lay the foundations for something bigger and something altogether more dangerous.
Calls for an armed forces federation, similar to the already existing police body, first appeared on www.arrse.co.uk, a website run by ordinary soldiers. You are welcomed onto the home page by a Mr Potatohead character holding a gun and drinking a pint, and even the name of the site implies the humour that is found on most of its pages.
It loosely describes itself as an amusing insight into the culture of the armed forces. An interesting quotes section cites leading military men ranging from Stalin to Napoleon, and you can also read contributions from soldiers in the "arrsepedia". This is a "collection of vaguely encyclopaedia-like articles", of which the content is "just occasionally a touch offensive". Here you can find information about anything remotely connected to the armed forces. It makes for an interesting reference point, especially because soldiers write and amend the articles themselves.
By publishing all sorts of contributions from serving soldiers, the website could develop, almost despite itself, into a 'soldiers newspaper'. The chat rooms and message boards are already very active, and with the right kind of politics would be a great forum for members of the army, navy and airforce alike. As it stands, though, it is predictably vague and prides itself on having "something for everyone".
This is no focus for rebel squaddies. Not yet anyway. The organisers inform us that the site is an informative resource and add, tongue in cheek, that it is "not promoting the armed overthrow of HMG by the British military". It reeks of British/English nationalism, and praise for "our boys" fighting in the 'national interest' is prominent. It was probably naive of me to expect overt anti-war sentiment, let alone signs of open rebellion, among the archives.
That the website carries views that reflect current consciousness is only to be expected. Nevertheless, we should welcome the self-styled 'Army Rumour Service', whose site contains a whiff of rank and file self-organisation. Not that the webmasters view things in this way. ARS explicitly says it does not want an armed forces trade union.
Of course, the only way to overcome nationalist and pro-establishment illusions is to engage with them. Rumblings at the bottom are totally different from the talk of overstretch and protests about the failure of the Blair government to agree a clear exit strategy from Iraq that one hears coming from certain quarters of the officer caste.
It is natural that people who are dissatisfied with things as they are and who want some kind of change will initially express their demands in an inchoate way, often using the patriotic reference points they feel comfortable with. But the more such questioning builds, the more the ground becomes ripe for leftwing politics to develop.
As noted in this paper last week, no member of the armed forces is legally allowed to join a trade union or association. This restrains them personally and economically, ensuring the state maintains the strict controls it has over their lives. Eg, soldiers are unable to legally protest against pay and conditions.
They do have the formal right to register an objection to a war, but in fact this exists only on paper. The ministry of defence invariably fails to inform members of the armed forces of their legal right to object either before or after posting them to their new stations.
Links on www.arrse.co.uk lead to other armed forces activist groups that are fighting to change the ethos of the army in relation to this issue. At Ease is a confidential service that offers support and advice to soldiers and their families. It also provides legal representation to conscientious objectors (www.atease.org.uk).
At present Britain fails to comply with the United Nations stipulation that individuals should have the right to information about conscientious objection. According to At Ease, "the army regard conscientious objection as a disciplinary offence and the navy regard it as a psychiatric condition". You can imagine how they would react to an organised refusal to fight.
Another complaint voiced by At Ease is that soldiers can be sent into combat below the age of 18. These young people, usually male, are abused by a system that traps them and denies them their right to free association. Teenagers can be enticed by the romantic propaganda and end up being sacrificed in the 'national interest' before they can legally vote or even watch films deemed too violent for them.
Such campaigns carry an implicit political message and it would be foolish in the extreme to dismiss them simply because we oppose the standing army as a general principle.
Likewise the significance of the idea for a British Armed Forces Federation lies in the fact that it has come from below. It testifies to the mood that exists and points to the need for soldiers' committees and the democratisation of the armed forces.
We welcome the fact that squaddies have taken a first step and urge them to march on.