Marx was right about the "English way" and so am I.
On 11/28/05, Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> wrote:
> Justin wrote:
>
> > The questionm si,w hat promotes goals of popular opposition to the
> > wars and self-organizationm in opposing the wars?
>
> What promotes popular opposition to the wars, among soldiers and
> civilians, is surely not Boddi running up to men in uniform and
> thanking them profusely for their selfless service in the Iraq War
> and uncomplaining obedience to orders given by their superiors (let
> alone telling them that treaties are not the Law of the Land!).
>
> As it happened, Marx thought about the question of whether soldiers
> should be encouraged to think about the question of law, justice,
> etc. on their own, rather than simply obey commands.
>
> <blockquote>The English Soldier's Oath of Allegiance
> Source: MECW Volume 9, p. 22;
> Written: Written on March 7, 1849;
> First published: in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 241, March 9, 1849
>
> Cologne, March 7. The Neue Preussische Zeitung in great triumph
> publishes the English army oath of allegiance and rejoices
> immeasurably at the discovery that the English soldier swears loyalty
> only to the Queen but not to the Constitution. Should we then in
> Prussia, in the youngest constitutional state, should we, contrary to
> the example of the oldest constitutional country, compel our soldiers
> to swear allegiance to the Constitution?
>
> But the Neue Preussische Zeitung forgets to inform the readers how
> the English soldier stands in relation to civil laws.
>
> As a matter of course, the British soldier, for all offences which
> are not mere offences against discipline, is tried by the ordinary
> courts, the county courts, petty sessions, quarter sessions[18] or
> assize courts, and in all conflicts with other citizens he is treated
> simply as a citizen.
>
> But that is not all. In England every citizen, whether an official, a
> soldier or whatever he is, is responsible before the law for all his
> actions and cannot plead as an excuse that the action in question was
> ordered by his superior. For example, a revolt occurs. Troops are
> called in. Legal demands to disperse are or are not issued. The
> people do not disperse. A civilian official (always a justice of the
> peace or an urban elected official) gives permission for the army to
> intervene, or does not do so. The soldiers open fire, there are
> deaths. The findings of an inquest on those killed come before a
> coroner's jury which establishes the facts in each case. If the jury
> decides that the intervention of the armed forces was not justified
> by the circumstances, it brings in a verdict of premeditated murder
> against all the participants, including therefore the civilian
> official who gave permission for the intervention of the troops, the
> officer who gave the order to fire, and all the soldiers who actually
> opened fire.
>
> If the civilian official did not give permission for intervention,
> the consequence is merely that he does not figure in the verdict.
> Matters remain unaltered as far as the officers and soldiers are
> concerned.
>
> This verdict of premeditated murder is a formal indictment, on the
> basis of which criminal proceedings are instituted before the regular
> courts with their juries.
>
> The English soldier, therefore, is by no means regarded by the law as
> a machine that has no will of its own and must obey without argument
> any order given it, but as a "free agent", a man possessing free
> will, who at all times must know what he is doing and who bears
> responsibility for all his actions. English judges would give a stern
> reply to an accused soldier if he defended himself by saying that he
> had been ordered to fire and that he had had to "obey orders"!
>
> In Prussia things are quite different. In Prussia the soldier
> declares that his immediate superior gave him the order to fire, and
> this frees him from all punishment. In Prussia, and likewise in
> France, the official is assured of complete impunity for every
> violation of the law when he can prove that the order for it had come
> from his proper superior in the proper hierarchical way.
>
> The Neue Preussische Zeitung will probably take our word for it that
> we do not hold the view that the brief formula of an oath can alter a
> man and turn a black-and-white Guards lieutenant into an enthusiast
> for "constitutional freedom".
>
> In the last twelve months, the gentlemen who are "with God for King
> and Fatherland" have themselves, through their own praiseworthy kith
> and kin, gained the most pleasant experience of the significance of
> the oath. We are not at all against the Neue Preussische Zeitung
> making the army swear allegiance to the king, the Dalai Lama or the
> man in the moon, so long as "My glorious army",[19] in the way which
> has been described above, is put in exactly the same position in
> relation to the laws as the army in England.
>
> <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/03/09.htm></blockquote>
>
> Marx thought that the English way was superior to the Prussian or
> French way when it came to individual soldiers' rights and duties.
>
> In addition to encouraging soldiers to think on their own, leftists
> should make sure that, when and if they do make decisions to take a
> stand against the war (by not reenlisting, protesting, applying for
> CO status, deserting, etc.), they will be supported by many and
> convey useful information to them.
>
> Yoshie Furuhashi
> <http://montages.blogspot.com>
> <http://monthlyreview.org>
> <http://mrzine.org>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>