12 ms·

This is the most interesting part, for me: > The PLA, unlike the armed forces of the United States, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and other regional heavyweights,

by r0h1n 13y ago

This is the most interesting part, for me: > The PLA, unlike the armed forces of the United States, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and other regional heavyweights, is by definition not a professional fighting force. Rather, it is a “party army,” the armed wing of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Indeed, all career officers in the PLA are members of the CCP and all units at the company level and above have political officers assigned to enforce party control. Likewise, all important decisions in the PLA are made by Communist Party committees that are dominated by political officers, not by operators. This system ensures that the interests of the party’s civilian and military leaders are merged, and for this reason new Chinese soldiers entering into the PLA swear their allegiance to the CCP, not to the PRC constitution or the people of China. > For that reason, the PLA has to engage in constant “political work” at the expense of training for combat. This means that 30 to 40 percent of an officer’s career (or roughly 15 hours per 40-hour work week) is wasted studying CCP propaganda, singing patriotic songs, and conducting small group discussions on Marxist-Leninist theory.

thaumasiotes 13y ago
I am given to understand that British soldiers entering the army swear their allegiance to the Queen, not to the constitution nor the population. So?
- wiredfool 13y ago
  The British don't have a constitution to swear on.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    Yes, they do. It just is not codified in a single document.
- tsotha 13y ago
  Sure, but do they spend 40% of their time strengthening that allegiance?
- argumentum 13y ago
  How exactly does the UK clinging to a backward tradition justify the Chinese clinging to a backward tradition?
  - coldtea 13y ago
    What does exactly make it a "backward tradition"? That you have other ideas about how things should be?
    - r0h1n 13y ago
      Can we at least agree that being ruled by a monarch, even a titular one, isn't progressive either?
      - arethuza 13y ago
        I'd prefer to have a non-political head of state for the UK (like Germany and Ireland), but I'd rather have the current setup with the monarchy over direct control of the military by the PM.
    - mike-cardwell 13y ago
      It's backward because it's not representative democracy. It's inherited political power. Even if you don't believe they have real power, it's still offensive to anyone that believes in representative democracy and selecting their leadership. Englishman here. If we had ousted the monarchy 100 years ago, I'm absolutely certain that today, it would have been considered a good thing and we'd have a yearly celebration about getting rid of them, and we'd mock other countries for still being backwards and having a monarchy. But no, we still have a monarchy, so "we" fool ourselves into thinking that it's a good thing. You can mostly blame patriotism for that.
      - gaius 13y ago
        Then to who or what to allegiance be sworn? Can you imagine the horror if someone like Tony Blair was personally in charge of the military?
- gaius 13y ago
  There is a reason for this: so that the Army (or any of the other British institutions that nominally have the Queen at the top of their org charts) can't be politicized. That's the theory anyway, tho' New Labour tried their best to stuff the civil service and the BBC with their cronies. So when the PM of the day says "go and shoot the leader of the opposition" the soldier or marine or policeman can say "sorry mate, I actually don't work for you".
  - arethuza 13y ago
    As far as I can tell, the status of the armed forces in the UK is rather complex - they do indeed report to the monarch in her/his capacity as commander-in-chief but they only legally exists because of Parliament repeatedly passing Armed Forces Acts every 5 years or so to legalize them otherwise they would be illegal under the 1689 Bill of Rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 Also worth noting that we don't have a Royal Army: "Our Army is not called the Royal Army (unlike the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force) because, after a historic struggle between Parliament and monarchy, the British Army has always been answerable to Parliament and the British people. If you live in Britain today, the actions of the British Army have affected the culture, traditions, government and laws of the society you live in, and, on a global scale, are continuing to do so today." Which I take as a reference to Parliaments New Model Army that won the English Civil War against the monarch: http://www.nam.ac.uk/about-us http://www.nam.ac.uk/about-us http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Model_Army http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Model_Army Having said that, Army officers that I have known tend (in private at least) to be somewhat skeptical about politicians of all parties and very clear that their ultimate allegiance is to the Monarch rather than the PM - given that PMs we've had in the last 15 years or so I'm rather glad of this.
    - gaius 13y ago
      And yet, the Army is comprised of the Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers, Royal Signals, Royal Armoured Corps, etc etc etc.
      - 13y ago
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  When Britain was a legitimate Monarchy this was a big deal. Today Britain is a liberal (in the classic sense) democracy so the tradition is merely a bit of an anachronism.
- EliRivers 13y ago
  Just because I find it interesting, the Royal Navy for a very long time didn't do an oath at all (that said, the UK armed forces are charmingly diverse and I bet some of them did!), although non-officer Royal Marines did. I think I heard that non-officer Royal Navy recruits now do, but that was because the army and air force people did and it seemed silly to have the difference, so in the interests of being able to apply one system to all, the Royal Navy non-officer recruits now do, but there was no requirement for everyone already in to go back and do it, so now there's a navy in which everyone with more than X years of service didn't do any oath-swearing, and the new kids did. All something of a faff and taken as seriously as it sounds! I understand that in some nations, it's taken quite seriously.
- rmc 13y ago
  The UK has no constitution.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    Yes, it does. Just not one codified in a single document. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_King...
    - argumentum 13y ago
      Umm .. from the top of that very page .. > Historically, "No Act of Parliament can be unconstitutional, for the law of the land knows not the word or the idea."[3] Since the Glorious Revolution in 1688, the bedrock of the British constitution has traditionally been the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, according to which the statutes passed by Parliament are the UK's supreme and final source of law.[4] It follows that Parliament can change the constitution simply by passing new Acts of Parliament. So, basically no, it doesn't have a constitution analogous to the US Constitution.
      - twoodfin 13y ago
        I understand the distinction you're trying to draw, but a constitution that can be changed more readily than the U.S. Constitution is still a constitution.
        argumentum 13y ago
        But it's less of one.
coldtea 13y ago
>> For that reason, the PLA has to engage in constant “political work” at the expense of training for combat. This means that 30 to 40 percent of an officer’s career (or roughly 15 hours per 40-hour work week) is wasted studying CCP propaganda, singing patriotic songs, and conducting small group discussions on Marxist-Leninist theory. I very much doubt the conduct "small group discussions on Marxist-Leninist theory" the last 20+ years. When was the article written?
- matthewrudy 13y ago
  A friend is a deputy of her local party group. They still do monthly meetings of this type; discussing the progress of the five year plan, the teachings of mao, all this stuff you associate with the Cultural Revolution. But really everyone just sleeps through that, and goes along for the social activities and networking.
- forgottenpaswrd 13y ago
  You need to travel to China. Now, not 20 years ago, if you want to be rich(or do anything by the way) there you need to be a member of the communist party. And yes, it may surprise you but in communist party they discuss and study communism theory. The "openness" is a survival strategy for them, a release valve if you wish. No way they could have survived that long without it.
  - ttflee 13y ago
    > in communist party they discuss and study communism theory. Yes, the CCP members believe in Marxism as much as the members of Church of England believe in God, according to my personal speculations.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >Now, not 20 years ago, if you want to be rich(or do anything by the way) there you need to be a member of the communist party. That I know. That they really study "communist theory" is what I doubt.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
goblin89 13y ago
That was the most interesting part for me: > To mitigate the destabilizing effects of the PLA’s strategy, the U.S. and its allies should try harder to maintain their current (if eroding) leads in military hardware. But more importantly, they must continue investing in the training that makes them true professionals. While manpower numbers are likely to come down in the years ahead due to defense budget cuts, regional democracies will have less to fear from China’s weak but dangerous military if their axes stay sharp.

by r0h1n 13y ago

thaumasiotes 13y ago

I am given to understand that British soldiers entering the army swear their allegiance to the Queen, not to the constitution nor the population. So?

wiredfool 13y ago
The British don't have a constitution to swear on.
- vidarh 13y ago
  Yes, they do. It just is not codified in a single document.
tsotha 13y ago
Sure, but do they spend 40% of their time strengthening that allegiance?
argumentum 13y ago
How exactly does the UK clinging to a backward tradition justify the Chinese clinging to a backward tradition?
- coldtea 13y ago
  What does exactly make it a "backward tradition"? That you have other ideas about how things should be?
  - r0h1n 13y ago
    Can we at least agree that being ruled by a monarch, even a titular one, isn't progressive either?
    - arethuza 13y ago
      I'd prefer to have a non-political head of state for the UK (like Germany and Ireland), but I'd rather have the current setup with the monarchy over direct control of the military by the PM.
  - mike-cardwell 13y ago
    It's backward because it's not representative democracy. It's inherited political power. Even if you don't believe they have real power, it's still offensive to anyone that believes in representative democracy and selecting their leadership. Englishman here. If we had ousted the monarchy 100 years ago, I'm absolutely certain that today, it would have been considered a good thing and we'd have a yearly celebration about getting rid of them, and we'd mock other countries for still being backwards and having a monarchy. But no, we still have a monarchy, so "we" fool ourselves into thinking that it's a good thing. You can mostly blame patriotism for that.
    - gaius 13y ago
      Then to who or what to allegiance be sworn? Can you imagine the horror if someone like Tony Blair was personally in charge of the military?
gaius 13y ago
There is a reason for this: so that the Army (or any of the other British institutions that nominally have the Queen at the top of their org charts) can't be politicized. That's the theory anyway, tho' New Labour tried their best to stuff the civil service and the BBC with their cronies. So when the PM of the day says "go and shoot the leader of the opposition" the soldier or marine or policeman can say "sorry mate, I actually don't work for you".
- arethuza 13y ago
  As far as I can tell, the status of the armed forces in the UK is rather complex - they do indeed report to the monarch in her/his capacity as commander-in-chief but they only legally exists because of Parliament repeatedly passing Armed Forces Acts every 5 years or so to legalize them otherwise they would be illegal under the 1689 Bill of Rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 Also worth noting that we don't have a Royal Army: "Our Army is not called the Royal Army (unlike the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force) because, after a historic struggle between Parliament and monarchy, the British Army has always been answerable to Parliament and the British people. If you live in Britain today, the actions of the British Army have affected the culture, traditions, government and laws of the society you live in, and, on a global scale, are continuing to do so today." Which I take as a reference to Parliaments New Model Army that won the English Civil War against the monarch: http://www.nam.ac.uk/about-us http://www.nam.ac.uk/about-us http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Model_Army http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Model_Army Having said that, Army officers that I have known tend (in private at least) to be somewhat skeptical about politicians of all parties and very clear that their ultimate allegiance is to the Monarch rather than the PM - given that PMs we've had in the last 15 years or so I'm rather glad of this.
  - gaius 13y ago
    And yet, the Army is comprised of the Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers, Royal Signals, Royal Armoured Corps, etc etc etc.
    - 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
InclinedPlane 13y ago
When Britain was a legitimate Monarchy this was a big deal. Today Britain is a liberal (in the classic sense) democracy so the tradition is merely a bit of an anachronism.
EliRivers 13y ago
Just because I find it interesting, the Royal Navy for a very long time didn't do an oath at all (that said, the UK armed forces are charmingly diverse and I bet some of them did!), although non-officer Royal Marines did. I think I heard that non-officer Royal Navy recruits now do, but that was because the army and air force people did and it seemed silly to have the difference, so in the interests of being able to apply one system to all, the Royal Navy non-officer recruits now do, but there was no requirement for everyone already in to go back and do it, so now there's a navy in which everyone with more than X years of service didn't do any oath-swearing, and the new kids did. All something of a faff and taken as seriously as it sounds! I understand that in some nations, it's taken quite seriously.
rmc 13y ago
The UK has no constitution.
- vidarh 13y ago
  Yes, it does. Just not one codified in a single document. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_King...
  - argumentum 13y ago
    Umm .. from the top of that very page .. > Historically, "No Act of Parliament can be unconstitutional, for the law of the land knows not the word or the idea."[3] Since the Glorious Revolution in 1688, the bedrock of the British constitution has traditionally been the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, according to which the statutes passed by Parliament are the UK's supreme and final source of law.[4] It follows that Parliament can change the constitution simply by passing new Acts of Parliament. So, basically no, it doesn't have a constitution analogous to the US Constitution.
    - twoodfin 13y ago
      I understand the distinction you're trying to draw, but a constitution that can be changed more readily than the U.S. Constitution is still a constitution.
      - argumentum 13y ago
        But it's less of one.

coldtea 13y ago

>> For that reason, the PLA has to engage in constant “political work” at the expense of training for combat. This means that 30 to 40 percent of an officer’s career (or roughly 15 hours per 40-hour work week) is wasted studying CCP propaganda, singing patriotic songs, and conducting small group discussions on Marxist-Leninist theory. I very much doubt the conduct "small group discussions on Marxist-Leninist theory" the last 20+ years. When was the article written?

matthewrudy 13y ago
A friend is a deputy of her local party group. They still do monthly meetings of this type; discussing the progress of the five year plan, the teachings of mao, all this stuff you associate with the Cultural Revolution. But really everyone just sleeps through that, and goes along for the social activities and networking.
forgottenpaswrd 13y ago
You need to travel to China. Now, not 20 years ago, if you want to be rich(or do anything by the way) there you need to be a member of the communist party. And yes, it may surprise you but in communist party they discuss and study communism theory. The "openness" is a survival strategy for them, a release valve if you wish. No way they could have survived that long without it.
- ttflee 13y ago
  > in communist party they discuss and study communism theory. Yes, the CCP members believe in Marxism as much as the members of Church of England believe in God, according to my personal speculations.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >Now, not 20 years ago, if you want to be rich(or do anything by the way) there you need to be a member of the communist party. That I know. That they really study "communist theory" is what I doubt.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

goblin89 13y ago

That was the most interesting part for me: > To mitigate the destabilizing effects of the PLA’s strategy, the U.S. and its allies should try harder to maintain their current (if eroding) leads in military hardware. But more importantly, they must continue investing in the training that makes them true professionals. While manpower numbers are likely to come down in the years ahead due to defense budget cuts, regional democracies will have less to fear from China’s weak but dangerous military if their axes stay sharp.