/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2632007
Army guys are all about stabilty. If they feel like the current administration might cause some instability they will do coup.

because the civilian governments in these countries are inept and corrupt to an extreme degree, there is no institutional support beyond a high level whereas the military tends to have an advantage, in less fucked up countries the military is obedient to the state, in countries like these, the state is obedient to the military

All the coups in South America happened due to insane anticommunism

>>2632030
Wrong.

>>2632007
>What causes the army to betray the government and country?
I think it's a bit more complicated in some countries because there can be genuine popular support for military rebellions like in the Sahel which is what you appear to be referring to. The people on the street can move first which is a signal for the army to act. Also it's hard to really speak of stability in the first place when half of these countries are basically ungoverned war zones. There's an interesting theory from a Nigerien political scientist I was reading that it's like a fallback to a traditional method of rule by military chiefs. That doesn't necessarily make it good (and I think leftists who have cheered this on are naive, it's essentially a reactionary phenomenon in its own context) but this is a major factor: >>2632023

>>2632217
yeah, another significant factor i didn't mention in that post (since i wanted to be brief and explain the basic reason these coups happen) is also because the militaries themselves are significantly older and also more respected by the local populace, the reason why military coups are very rare in the americas since the cold war isn't because the US made them happen, that's a misconception i think people should correct, rather it's because for the most part, the militaries in these nations became far more subservient to the civilian governments as they reached a certain level of economic and societal development that made military rule unpopular, in a country in which pretty much every institution (the bureaucracy, other types of public servants, city governments, etc) is civilian controlled and supportive of a civilian government, it's a massive depressor for any military government, since a military government needs the consent of at least a plurality of each of those to efficiently run the state, whereas in the west african states but also other states prone to military coups, public servants don't really have a favored outcome, civilian or military, as long as it's a stable government, and so don't really care enough to actually oppose a coup since the civilian government is just not well established nor supported by a majority of its respective population

>>2632007
> So what exactly causes military coups in thirdie countries?
Well there are many different types of military coups, some of which are aligned with NATO hegemony (Suharto, Blaise Compaore, Augusto Pinochet), some of which are not (Gaddafi, Sankara, Chavez). The former are brought about by meddling of more powerful countries, bribery, blackmail, etc. The prospect of becoming a comprador bourgeoisie is particularly enticing. The latter are a reassertion of national sovereignty by the national bourgeoisie or perhaps the peasantry and the proletariat in more revolutionary circumstances.

>What causes the army to betray the government and country?

You must be asking about the former case. To accuse the army of betrayal implies that their primary duty is to be loyal to the "whole" people. This is wrong headed. The army's duty is to be loyal to the ruling class, just like the police. Only in revolutionary situations do the army betray the ruling class, and side with the workers. Betraying the working class masses is the rule, not the exception, for the army.

> I mean even in firstie countries there's technically nothing stopping the military from taking over and overthrowing the government and they could do it if they wanted to, but they don't. Why?
There's plenty stopping them. Militaries are very large, and labor is very divided between specialists, not to mention the division between branches. And there is a mixture of different class/ethnic/racial/religious backgrounds, with different material interests. And the hierarchy subdivides the military even further, breaking up opportunities for the different divisions and branches to communicate and coordinate without the (mostly bourgeois) upper ranks knowing. You need bourgeois class traitors for a true revolutionary situation to kick off in the military. Which is why I said earlier that most military coups in the third world take the form of a conflict between the national bourgeoisie and the comrpador bourgeoisie. This division within the bourgeoisie has long been noted. Some place less weight upon it than others. As long as imperialism yields a huge difference between standard of living and wages between the "core" and "periphery" countries I think it is a valid thing to pay attention to. There will always be a desire for national sovereignty that cuts across class differences, and this is where the national bourgeoisie draws its energy from. This is what gives your Nassers, Gaddafis, and Saddams their power.

>>2632007
Money, funding, and narcissism

When the force of law has lost its head, the law of force is what you get. Violence begets violence, strong men eat weak men. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

Put yourself in the shoes of a middle officer in one of these countries that’s intensely poor and has civilian leadership that’s sold out to western corporations and drinking champagne with western leaders as al-Qaeda is literally at the door. You don’t need to be a marxist to understand this.