Should Consistent Leftists Be Pro-Gun? - Page 21 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Should Consistent Leftists Be Pro-Gun?

1. Yes, Consistent Leftist Thought Requires A Strongly Pro-Gun Stance and Broad Interpretation of The U.S.'s Second Amendment Rights.
11
46%
2. No, Consistent Leftist Thought Does Not Require A Strongly Pro-Gun Stance and Broad Interpretation of The U.S.'s Second Amendment Rights.
6
25%
3. Other.
7
29%
#14968428
B0ycey wrote: :lol:

"The conquest of power by the proletariat does not complete the revolution, but only opens it."

- Trotsky


:)
#14968429
ingliz wrote:"The conquest of power by the proletariat does not complete the revolution, but only opens it."

- Trotsky


:)


Ah, yes. Trotsky, the hero of the revolution for the Stalinists. :lol:

I debate with definitions not with quips. And your quips don't address anything I have written anyway FYI.

:)

Nonetheless is there any point in debating someone who ignores what is written and whose sole purpose on this thread is to publish irrelevant quips that don't address anything. You must be bored Ingliz. You are far away from my argument I don't even understand what you are trying to achieve. So perhaps I shouldn't feed your trolling. VS is back on Monday for you to argue with. Although thanks to me, you have basically sided with his argument. You must have ignored the OP btw. You have been arguing for liberal guns laws today.

:lol:
#14968442
B0ycey wrote:You have been arguing for liberal guns laws today.

No.

Gun laws are an irrevelance.

ingliz wrote:Orchestrated violence [terror] is always important.

The populist Left Social Revolutionaries alone, although greatly uncoordinated in their efforts, carried out approximately 2,000 political assassinations in the years leading up to the 1905 Revolution. The anarcho-communist Chernoe-Znamia groups organised raids on police stations, gun shops and arsenals and stole their stock; robbed banks and used the expropriations to buy more weapons; fought pitched battles with the police. Sticks of dynamite were thrown into factories or mansions of the most loathed capitalists. Bomb labs were set up, etc, ect.

To cap it all in March 1917 the Moscow Federation of Anarchist Groups bombed the headquarters of the Moscow Committee of the Communist Party.

What's the problem?

Terror is inadmissible because it belittles the role of the masses in their own consciousness, reconciles them to their powerlessness, and turns their eyes and hopes towards a great avenger and liberator who some day will come and accomplish his mission. The anarchist prophets of the ‘propaganda of the deed’ can argue all they want about the elevating and stimulating influence of terrorist acts on the masses. Theoretical considerations and political experience prove otherwise. the anarchist ‘propaganda of the deed’ has shown every time that the state is much richer in the means of physical destruction and mechanical repression than are the terrorist groups.*

It provokes reaction but is absolutely harmless as far as the social system goes.

So why are such acts important?

The more ‘effective’ the terrorist acts, the greater their impact, the more they reduce the interest of the masses in self-organisation and self-education. But the smoke from the confusion clears away, the panic disappears, the successor of the murdered minister makes his appearance, life again settles into the old rut, the wheel of capitalist exploitation turns as before; only the police repression grows more savage and brazen. And as a result, in place of the kindled hopes and artificially aroused excitement comes disillusionment and apathy.*

Such acts are counter-revolutionary.

"The Congress decisively rejects terrorism, i.e., the system of individual political assassinations, as being a method of political struggle which is most inexpedient at the present time, diverting the best forces from the urgent and imperatively necessary work of organisation and agitation, destroying contact between the revolutionaries and the masses of the revolutionary classes of the population, and spreading both among the revolutionaries themselves and the population in general utterly distorted ideas of the aims and methods of struggle."

- Lenin

If we oppose terrorist acts, it is only because individual revenge does not satisfy us. The account we have to settle with the capitalist system is too great to be presented to some functionary called a minister."

- Trotsky


:)


* Trotsky
#14969345
@B0ycey


Lenin on insurrection.

Rule 1

"Never play with insurrection."

Like all anarchists, VS is playing a very silly game.
#14969348
VS doesn't play with insurrection. Nobody on PoFo does - as I suspect everyone is impotent at trying to achieve their ideological goals beyond complaining on the Internet. It is clear everyone is a keyboard warrior on here and at best all of these threads VS creates are hypothetical on the dreams of fantasy where he targets adoration from people he claims are his opponents because he wants to believe his opinion has relivance - which they don't outside of PoFo.

Nonetheless I watch France today and can see the potency of a minor civil unrest at achieving politcal change and wonder why the insistance of many that it is guns which achieve change over unity in numbers.
#14969671
B0ycey wrote:guns

Intimidation is a powerful weapon of policy.

Trotsky wrote:War, like revolution, is founded upon intimidation. A victorious war, generally speaking, destroys only an insignificant part of the conquered army, intimidating the remainder and breaking their will. The revolution works in the same way: it kills individuals, and intimidates thousands.
  • 1
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21

Actually, I think SO proposes judging them based […]

Do American presidents create video games, so that[…]

Leftists typically like to say the rule of law is […]

Do old men create God and magic, so that any type […]