Marxism vs Militarism: How the media presents the UK armed forces

From the annual remembrance day parades with every street corner and war memorial showered with paper poppies and the previous year's VE day celebrations (in which Union Jack bunting and celebratory afternoon teas in honour of the UK winning the Second World War gave a superficial sense of "80 years of peace" in a war torn world ruled by corrupt neo-colonial and imperialist warmongering leaders' interests) to the constant arms fairs and attempts at recruitment into the army.... to the ultimate climax of new US air bases in the UK, the presence of the military in the UK is ever more obvious. It appears continually creeping up on us like some grotesque spectre of impending doom of things to come, much akin to a vile version of Charles Dickens' Ghost of Things to Come but clothed in garish green and brown camouflage, hinting at the huge threat and fear for our lives unless we facilitate effective revolution against the global capitalistic and ultranationalist systems we live under ruled by exploitation and expropriation of land, and  for the main world leaders to come together the sinister desire to engage with a favourite pastime: seeing how many people can be illegally killed without intervention by the UN taking place....

Its also important to take into account the fact that when assessing the extent of a nation's military influence, its not always a developing vs developed world or a coloniser vs colonised situation regarding the military powers with the greatest influence which can be observed; the same principles of a significant superpower status and ability to control and any other nation when acting as an imperial power is considered universally as the peak stage of supposed international development. One of the most effective and efficient ways of reaching this point is through military expansion. This was something that Marx considered an inherently socially and politically conservative ideal, which would in many ways appear somewhat counter-intuitive to proposed revolutionary intentions considering, as he put it, they were "performing a system maintaining repressive function" which exists merely to fulfil and work around the interests of the elite with vested interests in the capitalist dimension of neo-colonial warfare (Wolpin, 1978). Not only this, but it is also clear to see that a nation's armed forces prove to act as a very effective illustration of the structural and hierarchical integrity of the current classist and elitist society ruled by the ever present repression and imbalances in power that define it. This is observed through the strong hierarchy of influence and importance amongst those installed in the military. For societies in which the military does not appear to have very much separating it from the government and parliamentary leadership, or temporarily or permanently acting as the government, this is especially apparent.

However, as materialists who would consider making use of the existing structures and defining features of current society fundamental in achieving successful revolution, Marx and Engels would likely not have disregarded or refused to acknowledge the history of the military in assisting the formation of the capitalist society they studied. In fact, military training was often used by many revolutionaries to their advantage to further assist their ability to effectively rise against and overthrow the oppression, and promote improved social mobility throughout the process of successful revolution. This was the case with Engels, who had undergone military training at a young age, wrote with interest on militarism, and was formerly a volunteer for the Berlin-based military group, Brigade of the Artillery, which was the turning point for his political development, and the way he met Marx and many other of the influential left-Hegelians that the basis of his political philosophies were built upon. He used this military training and experience to actively assist the armed uprising in Prussia as a general around this time, and in turn allowing this to assist his working with Marx in London. So much so, he is referred to by the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism Online as a "military thinker" as opposed to a revolutionary theorist, which further proves to exemplify this sentiment.

When linking back to present times and the role of the media in presenting and glamourising the UK's military and imperial past, in spite of its empire no longer being active and its hard power elements having diminished over time, it can be seen that the main appeal to preserve the military influence of the UK and continue to assist its expansion is largely down to a sense of national pride, and perhaps nostalgia for imperial times, as well as with a lack of willingness to remove existing structures so heavily ingrained in the cultural and socio-political history of the nation.