Bronwyn refers to the 'increasingly jingoisitic' celebration of the various days.

Hoooooray! GOOD.. that's a basis for a sensible discussion about how we should educate our citizenry and inculcate a sense of history and morality in them.

THE ABSENSE of.... a clear and non politically correct view of history, and the various players in the game, will result in just one thing.. JINGOISM.. reason? simple.. because all the people have to go on is the iconic 'days' and the hype surrounding them.

Having only 'Days' of remembrance and also never forgetting that scroundrel of capitalism "The free press" which in reality is a Ratings based commercial venture seeking ever increasing advertising revenue... which in turn will tend to pander to populist jingoistic ('Shock Jocks/Cronulla') themes.... will create the very jingoism that people are observing.

THE PRESENSE OF... clear and incisive history, a sense of known place in the world, how we got here (warts and all)..where we hope to go and what moral character is desirable for all this.. would avoid the problem Bronwyn and others bring to our focus.

We would then KNOW enough to evaluate information correctly, and less emotively. We would not assess people or cultures based on just sensationalized advertising revenue raising headlines.

John Passant is a political dinasaur in my view. There is nothing clear cut about class difference or class war.. much as his comrades might like to think.

CJ Morgan

’Warfare pre-existed the development of class-based societies, for example in tribal horticultural societies such as those of Melanesia, or indeed among Australian Aboriginal gathering-hunting societies.’

Yes, but this type of warfare differs greatly in both scale and method from war as we know it today. Often these tribal conflicts were/are more like ongoing guerrilla stoushes over land and other resources. They involve lots of bombastic posturing, but actual clashes are minimized, as is loss of life. It’s the closest we get to armed conflict as ‘nature’ intended it.

The highly militarised form of warfare we know today – that causes catastrophic loss of life for both soldiers and civilians and the devastating destruction of cultures – started to come into effect about 2,000 to 4,000 BCE – and only in those parts of the world where societies had developed hierarchical class structures.

In this sense, Passy’s hypothesis that class forms the basis of all organised warfare has merit.

Passy

’The conscription referenda both lost as unions, some of the ALP, the Catholic church and others (including the IWW)campaigned against it.’

And isn't it interesting that the courage and bravery of their struggle has become the 'forget' part of Lest We Forget, even though they arguably saved tens of thousands of young Australian lives?

You make important points there John. I'd add that 2/3 of diggers voted against Hughes' conscription drive, which reinforces your point about IWW, ALP, and the Catholic Church. However, IWW hardly monopolized anti-conscription campaigns, forming rather a small part of them.

Histories record how widespread revolutionary fervor did much to disintegrate the German line in NW Europe by late 1918. That is essential when considering wider political and strategic contexts: certain imperialist-sponsored fifth-column efforts against Germany's home front; how far Germany's working class were already emancipated indeed radicalized by then, and; how those developments spread the "stab-in-the-back" poison into German nationalism by the early 1920s.

I offer another view, more controversial, especially given the general acceptance of the notion that WWI was some squabble between rival imperialists centred around nation-states' respective monarchies. If we look at the imperialist embargoes and enforced isolation on Germany, and Germany's efforts at cooperative economic developments to Turkey, the Levant and the Persian Gulf, we can see that properly defined "Empire" at the time wanted nothing less than absolute subjugation of the Middle East in particular, and the (mostly) colonized and "non-developed" world in general. Germany had then the most advanced conditions for workers and farmers, arguably alongside those in Australia and Argentina, thanks largely to the progressive achievements of Bismarck (suggested also by Australian and German working-class military innovations in the area of low-level "shock" or "storm troop" raiding tactics from 1915). Its weak monarchy - and backward, recently nationalized junkers - were fast on the way out, while its small "catchup" colonialism too seemed a token near-irrelevancy.

In the big picture, we were actually on the wrong side in WWI; by WWII, continued imperialist persecution of German competition realized logical results, to the point where other countries had no choice but to put that previously advanced and civilized country down.

Finally, your equation of "capitalism=war" seems too SA-doctrinaire and simplistic for it to have any bearing on strategic realities. Savage warfare preoccupied Chinese-Soviet and Chinese-Vietnamese relations i.e., among states which propagated ideological tenets and policies quite close to those from SA.

It's hard to believe that a bloke like John and his 'Socialist Alternative' exist today. He obviously knows his war history, but nothing about the history of socialism and its awful desctruction in countries that endured it.

Righto Righty, but you are of course flat-out wrong when you claim "for a frustrated socialist to use the unnecessary deaths of Australians to rabbit on about ruling classes, imperialism and other such left wing nonsense is downright disgusting".

It's actually refreshing to read John's article, even though I disagree with John's view elsewhere when I claim that it is simplistic and doctrinaire. There is no "nonsense" to addressing "ruling classes" and "imperialism" at all in this context; such factors were germane to the First World War and its continuation of the aggressive ambition that gave rise to its crackpot imitators in fascism!

Rabbit on John.

I agree with John Passant , though not necessarily with his socialist analysis of this topic . Remembrance and Anzac Days should be left as days of remembrance for those who took part in the relevant conflicts and their contemporary relatives . Long distant relatives , who often were not alive when the conflict occurred ,should not seek to bask in the reflected glory of the deceased or aged combatant .Further , in most cases , those commemmorating do not understand the facts of the conflict . One can foresee that , in the future ,there will be pilgrimages to East Timor , Iraq and Afghanistan , by long distant backpackers who will believe that Australia faced invasion by soldiers from those countries and were saved by the presence of Australian troops who served there .

Jaylex