MLs and some Marxists in general think we’re too idealistic and utopian. Isn’t expecting the state to wither away by itself when it ceases to be useful pretty idealist? I really don’t understand why MLs think that would happen when it hasn’t happened at all in history.
I thought they were strict because they were the product of authoritarian societies. But you said “generally” so I am curious about armies who aren’t like this. Are revolutionary armies less strict and authoritarian ?
deleted by creator
Maybe armies in authoritarian societies are especially strict. However they are (I think always) more strict/hierarchical than the society they belong to. This makes me think there is something about fighting that causes this structure. Maybe because hierarchies are effective in war? Maybe because the demographic who join armies are more naturally inclined to accept/support hierarchies?
The exception I was thinking of were International Brigades in the Spanish civil war. Some of which were anarchist e.g. Durruti Column. I am sure there are other examples but this is the first one that comes to mind.
because of examples from the Spanish war that I started to ask myself if aren’t strict authoritarian people more leaned towards wars, conquering and oppressing others, hence military history has been written mostly by these people. So it isn’t about being a better way for organizing for war, but that’s how conquerors act and organize. Just me wondering
Yeah, that is plausible. I think it is probably a mixture of things.