For the abolition of the standing army¶
Core Argument¶
The chapter argues that the standing army is not a neutral institution but a direct reflection of the economic and political regime it serves. Its fundamental purpose is to protect the interests of the capitalist class, which owns and controls the means of production and distribution. The army, alongside the police and other state organs, is the ultimate guarantor of class rule. It performs a dual function: externally, it defends capitalist property from foreign rivals and extends control over colonial peoples and strategic zones; internally, it suppresses any working-class movement that the police cannot handle. The chapter asserts that the class which controls the army controls the nation, and the capitalists deliberately cultivate special ties with the military to secure their domination.
Historical evidence is invoked to substantiate this claim, specifically citing the use of the British army by Winston Churchill against striking workers. This example is presented as proof that the standing army is a constant threat to the wellbeing of working people, officered as it is by the sons and agents of the capitalist class. The chapter therefore concludes that workers can have no interest in maintaining such an institution; any government claiming to pursue socialist ends must dissolve the existing army entirely.
The positive alternative proposed is the universal arming of the people, organised under the control of working-class bodies. This workers’ armed militia would be subject to the democratic desires of the organised working class and could not be used for strikebreaking or anti-labour activities. Instead, it would serve as a weapon in the hands of the workers against reaction. The chapter frames this demand as both a consistent democratic demand and a class, socialist demand that strikes at the heart of capitalism. The polemical thrust is directed against reformist or social-democratic governments that claim to represent working-class interests while retaining the existing state apparatus, particularly its military arm. The argument implicitly rejects the notion that the army can be democratised or reformed from within; only its abolition and replacement by a class-controlled militia can secure working-class power.