Trotsky, Lenin and Luxemburg: a revisionist take on the role of the military in achieving revolution

 

Being considered as a means by which to maintain security, stability and assist the restoration of diplomacy between nations, as well as an instrumental means by which to preserve the individual economic and political influence that major global powers rely upon to maintain their superpower status, it is clearly apparent that the prioritisation of military interests would act as an effective indicator of a comparatively more right wing state. This is especially apparent if there are strong military alliances having been active within these nations, and would further prove to exemplify the sentiment that the imperial means by which to maintain and reach the highest stage of capitalism, as a way of assisting these. The reason is thus clear why many on the left would act repulsed and appalled by it taking centre stage in international political decision making. This can be seen with Isegrim-Schippel regarding the militia as "an impossibility and an absurdity" when going about his crusade against the development of a militia. His reasoning, despite also being in favour of nations having a strong and well-established military in that it can relieve economic pressures on society, is that it is a waste of resources and is economically impractical to spend so much of a country's GDP on the weapons and military training. This military training in question tends to relate to the youth, something which he finds problematic considering that there is supposedly the potential for the non-commissioned military officers "to exert the most corruptive influence on the youth". When linking back on the point regarding the development of a strong military, this appears to very much coincide with the arguably leftist and internationalist principle of individual military autonomy. This can be closely linked with the prevalence of issues posed by membership to military alliances today, such as with the case of the UK and its reliance on the US for military reasons as opposed to the development and strategic planning of their own armed forces, a decision made largely for their own right-wing vested interests.

The clear parallels with these ideals and those presented by the internationalist and Marxist revisionist Trotsky can be clearly apparent. This is observed through him reflecting on war as being something of an extension of politics and a means of further continuing revolution, with the existing army functioning as the "bulwark of the Tsarist regime". This sentiment is considered to differ quite a lot from the views adopted by other, perhaps more accelerationist, Marxists, in that the militia in itself would prove to act as  therefore prove to act as an important catalyst to the destruction of the old state and comes about due to its existence, and, therefore, the need to protest against its presence. It is through this that we can consider being a revolutionary as not merely being one who engages in direct action and dismantles existing systems, but one who actively seeks to bring about change through implementing new mechanisms for managing society and acting within the interests of the general people versus the elite with the decision making power, so as to develop a new and radically different form of society. While this can perhaps be seen as a more statist and supposedly less radical approach to achieving societal reform, it would appear to thus act as the way in which true democratic and socialist principles can effectively be preserved, so as to further effectively facilitate revolutionary change. It is through an understanding of this that the formation of militias would only act as one part of the achieving revolution with these intents, and clearly not the primary solution. This, according to him, would only be successful through a permanent international socialist revolution. 

This appears to starkly contrast with Lenin's revolutionary aims in that, despite being of similar ideological basis, there was differing emphasis on the use of force in achieving revolution. During the time of the early 20th century and especially in the lead up to the first Russian Revolution, the Russian army rapidly increased in scale and strength. This revolution began in St Petersburg through the mass mobilisation of an army of workers that is known as the "Bloody Sunday" massacre featuring clandestine use of stolen weapons in a protest against the government. This, Trotsky didn't believe to be a sustainable means by which to facilitate an effective ongoing revolution. Considering that his main aim was for a "permanent revolution" which featured gradual transition from an authoritarian capitalist system to a state of complete social democracy without the presence of a state in the form by which it was previously known, the idea of mass uprising and rapid dismantling of all elements of the existing capitalist system would thus prove to be fatalistic. As a result, he instead advocated the democratization of all, along with allowing citizens to form their own individual reactionary efforts. These didn't necessarily need to feature the use of weapons, considering his claims that:

"if the masses possessed machine guns and rifles. . . .this would largely remove the inevitability of an insurrection. The undecided army would lay down its arms at the feet of the armed people. But even unarmed, the masses possessed a great weapon-a moral weapon-their readiness to die"

This would further exemplify the strong revolutionary spirit ever present amongst the masses being in itself enough to allow them to gain the necessary influence and support amongst each other, so as to be able to effectively continue their revolution. After all, he saw it as a permanent internationalist movement which all nations would assist and mutually gain from, all sharing the key intention to greater mobilise all and unite them within class war (seen as a permanent phenomenon).

Is post-colonial international sovereignty an effective measure of development?

 As Lenin claimed, imperialism would appear by many as the highest stage of capitalism and the ultimate in social and economic advancement and civilisation. In fact, in present day political discourse, it remains one of the few things universally accepted by all, Global North or Global South, isolated or geo strategically engaged, coloniser or colonised. It is through this that many tensions arise between major settler colonial powers as to their positions of power and ability to effectively negotiate peace and agree on administration of effective security. Equally, on the other hand, as well as effectively severing ties between nations and leading to conflicts arising, alliances equally influential imperial superpowers can also further develop their influence to support internationalist aims, often leading to them becoming increasingly inter reliant on each other to further preserve their security and influence. This can prove to have clear negative consequences with regard to their sovereignty and ability to govern themselves, as well as therefore hindering potential development. It is through an understanding of this that one can effectively draw conclusions as to how internationally motivated a lot of these actions appear, and what ways supposed social development can best be achieved.

                            Varying forms of sovereignty I have placed on a political compass.

One may consider the relationship of the US and the UK in relation to geopolitics and international military operations to better understand this reasoning. While having historically had a strong and powerful empire and major hard power, soon effectively paving the way for their rapidly evolving soft power and cultural influence, the UK is also very much dependent on other nations’ resources to develop. While appearing somewhat isolationist in its approach to trade and communications and aiming to maintain an autarky position through scepticism of trade bloc membership and relations with other European countries so as to greater preserve its own national identity and take full advantage of its individual social infrastructure, from a military standpoint they are heavily reliant on the US’ influence, and a key player in assisting the provision of military aid and direct assistance in times of conflict. It is here that we can clearly see something of a diplomatic internationalist dimension to their operations much akin to the US, yet a clear legacy steeped in national pride and cultural identity. This can be questioned in regard to its positive influence, and the forms of internationalist nationalism that nations take can be clearly observed. 

In relation to this, one might regard national pride as a trivial and insignificant measure of development and relate more to the more complex and multifaceted sociopolitical aspects that could influence this when observing these sentiments. However, it is hugely prevalent and plays a significant role in the development of a nation's sovereignty and individual ability to use aspects of their culture and individual ideology to support their global influence and protect them against imperial threat. Settler colonial violence and abuse of power has maintained presence as a significant issue hindering international relations throughout the past century, and in turn being used as a means of further oppression by the imperial and capitalistic superpowers that would be able to directly benefit from it with regard to preserving their global influence. 

Equally, it also proves to be important to note that, while not directly being linked with imperial activity, the successful use of soft power and use of culture by the west has proven to have been instrumental in assisting the degradation of national identity and the  individual social, cultural and demographic characteristics of the colonised nations. This can thus act as a threat to diversity and result in greater homogeneity of culture globally. This can often be observed when realising the influence of the greater accessibility of Western media, in that this can mean that clear bias towards colonial and imperial centric nations' political perspectives. This could thus potentially foster a rise in pro-imperialist attitudes and the growth of capitalist ideals for these nations affected by globalisation and cultural homogenisation, meaning that attempts by the developing world to establish their own imperial power and superpower status so as to reach the highest stage of capitalist development (linking back on the ideas presented by Lenin in his 1917 theory on imperialism). As a result, it could be seen that international sovereignty, be that through well-established superpower status and global governance, economic self-sufficiency, or through success in nations' creation of cultural capital, would be one of the core means by which to achieve the ultimate in development (or as an effective means by which to avoid potential alternative geopolitical conflict and exploitation of influence that would hinder this).

Ethnic and cultural tensions can continue to arise for these nations as a result of this change with there being a very noticeable sense that indigenous populations would be left unsupported and their culture and environment could become under threat, thus meaning that they would often face barriers to accessing adequate infrastructure, support and employment therefore meaning that their standard of living and quality of life would likely have got considerably worse. This would mean that socioeconomic disparities and already existing equalities would likely continue to become even more apparent than they already are, and could thus put the main means of sovereign influence and autonomy from the westernised world would be reduced, leading to uneven development.

Overall, while one may see the functioning of nations as individual sovereign states to often be a position somewhat dictated by isolationist and individual capitalist motives, thus appearing to present an anti-internationalist sentiment, it is clear that this is not always the case. It can appear that from the perspective of imperially motivated future colonisers as well as the more revolutionary internationalist socialist nations, and those wishing to develop their own specific economic influence to assist their potential international relations, or reduce themselves from existing agreements or alliances that appear to hinder or have a negative influence on their interests. Therefore, it is clear that international sovereignty and ability to maintain one's own economic and political autonomy can prove to be instrumental in further promoting, assisting and acting as an effective indicator of international development.