[Victoribus Spolia]

By the end of 1917 the authorities had restricted the right to carry firearms.

In 1918 the Bolsheviks initiated a large scale confiscation of civilian firearms, outlawing their possession and threatening up to 10 years in prison for concealing a gun.

The only exception was made for hunters who were allowed to possess smoothbore weapons. Gun licenses, however, were strictly regulated and only issued by the NKVD.

Isn't this begging the question though as these policies came after the October Revolution in an effort to prevent counter-revolution?

[annatar1914]

Isn't this begging the question though as these policies came after the October Revolution in an effort to prevent counter-revolution?

Not only that, VS, but Communist Party members could bear arms, and there were literally millions of them, not to mention millions of Russians who bore arms on a regular basis as part of their duties in the Red Army, Special Services, Interior Ministry, regular police, etc... At a time when world war was expected to eventually happen again and the Soviet Union was arming as part of it's industrializtion like nobody's business. Nothing would have stood in the way of many of these people had they been truly disaffected, like the guy who shot Sergei Kirov, he was a member of the Communist party as well. I mentioned as much, but it falls on deaf ears.

[Pants-of-dog]

Irrelevant and clearly off topic. The question being had was whether or not the working class should be armed and whether rural folks were part of the proletariat.

It seems on topic to me. I will explain why.

According to libertarians and US conservatives, a well armed populace acts as a check or balance to government power. This theory is so widespread that it is treated as a description of reality.

But when we actually look at history, we see that the opposite is true: a well armed populace can act to support government oppression and make government less accountable.

This may be specific to colonial states like the US and Canada, so it may not apply to Europe.

Now, it seems that Marxists are more practical and are willing to look at the history and the facts as well as the theory.

So Marxist groups in the Americas who come from an anti-colonialism background will obviously not want to repeat history and arm the very people who may oppress them.

[ingliz]

begging the question... these policies came after the October Revolution

No.

I am comparing like with like.

The '2nd Amendment' (Dec. 1791) came after the 1776 revolution.

Communist Party members could bear arms, and there were literally millions of them

Bolsheviks:

8,400 in 1905,

13,000 in 1906,

46,100 in 1907,

falling to less than 10,000 in 1910,

with 23,600 members in early 1917.

By the summer of 1917, the membership of the Bolshevik Party had grown to 240,000.

Rabinowitch, The Bolsheviks in Power, records a major drop in membership (to the degree that party activity on the ground effectively came to a halt) in 1918.

Lenin put it at 300,000 to 400,000 in 1922.

[Victoribus Spolia]

No.

I am comparing like with like.

The '2nd Amendment' (Dec. 1791) came after the 1776 revolution.

Well in that case you are making a false analogy because no one argued that the post-revolution policies of these two groups would be the same given their ideology. I certainly never claimed such a thing.

I only claimed that Marxists RIGHT NOW should want the proletariat armed in the pursuit of revolution, and libertarians want the same populace armed right now because of their theory of natural rights.

Hence a parallel, not identity.

According to libertarians and US conservatives, a well armed populace acts as a check or balance to government power. This theory is so widespread that it is treated as a description of reality.

That is a common and simplistic argument, yes.

But when we actually look at history, we see that the opposite is true: a well armed populace can act to support government oppression and make government less accountable.

According to Marxism, this would only be because the proletarian lack a degree of class consciousness; however, this is not an argument against arming them as @Potemkin has pointed out, rather its an argument for them needing to be led via a vanguard.

However, the arming is still requisite for the struggle of the revolution itself.

Now, it seems that Marxists are more practical and are willing to look at the history and the facts as well as the theory.

So Marxist groups in the Americas who come from an anti-colonialism background will obviously not want to repeat history and arm the very people who may oppress them.

If they are the proletariat, they are by definition oppressed; hence, the white working class rural peoples you are describing are still, by definition, part of the working class that needs to be both liberated and to take control of the means of production.

Your argument appears to be muddled by a tension in your thought between viewing these peoples as part of the proletariat, or as being themselves oppressors (New-Left, Cultural Marxism), in virtue of their historical identity as patriarchal white Christian settlers.

However, under orthodox marxism, such individuals were victims of circumstance and were merely used by the capitalist class in its imperial ambitions, but this does not negate that they are now currently part of the proletariat that needs to armed and led onward into the revolution.

Marcuse's unorthodox notions taught that the proletariat can no longer be trusted with revolution and were irrevocably corrupted by capitalism and hence the real focus of history is the struggle between the dominant (oppressor) and the (oppressed). His ideas are not orthodox marxism and your ideas sound conflicted between his views and those of the classic interpretation of dialectical materialism.

How am I wrong in my assessment @annatar1914 and @Potemkin?

[ingliz]

RIGHT NOW

If the Bolsheviks wanted to arm the masses, why, after an almost bloodless coup and before the real fighting started, did they disarm the masses?

[Victoribus Spolia]

If the Bolsheviks wanted to arm the masses, why, after an almost bloodless coup and before the real fighting started, did they disarm the masses?

Are you asking me why they weren't consistent with their ideology?

What point does that serve?

[ingliz]

Are you asking me why they weren't consistent with their ideology?

No.

I am asking you why you believe the Bolsheviks wanted to arm the masses when plainly they didn't.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I am asking you why you believe the Bolsheviks wanted to arm the masses when plainly they didn't.

You should probably ask a Bolshevik; though I fail to see how that would matter.

Are you denying then that Marxism teaches for an armed proletariat revolution?

[Pants-of-dog]

That is a common and simplistic argument, yes.

According to Marxism, this would only be because the proletarian lack a degree of class consciousness; however, this is not an argument against arming them as @Potemkin has pointed out, rather its an argument for them needing to be led via a vanguard.

However, the arming is still requisite for the struggle of the revolution itself.

If they are the proletariat, they are by definition oppressed; hence, the white working class rural peoples you are describing are still, by definition, part of the working class that needs to be both liberated and to take control of the means of production.

Your argument appears to be muddled by a tension in your thought between viewing these peoples as part of the proletariat, or as being themselves oppressors (New-Left, Cultural Marxism), in virtue of their historical identity as patriarchal white Christian settlers.

However, under orthodox marxism, such individuals were victims of circumstance and were merely used by the capitalist class in its imperial ambitions, but this does not negate that they are now currently part of the proletariat that needs to armed and led onward into the revolution.

I do not know if colonial settlers are proletariat. And even if it were, it would not matter. I am not discussing Marxist theory from a European perspective. I am discussing Marxist action from an American (the Americas, not the USA) perspective.

There is no “tension” here about what box to put them in, since I am not trying to reconcile different theories. I am looking at historical facts and taking them into account when formulating a plan of action. This apparent tension is more likely due to your false dichotomy where Marxists are either European orthodox Marxists, or US SJWs.

Groups like the EZLN do not fit into this dichotomy of yours, and it is from the perspective of groups like that that we analyse how gun rights were actually used to oppress and take away land and rights.

So, the theory that arming the populace will act as a check to government overreach is not entirely correct.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I do not know if colonial settlers are proletariat.

Are they a laboring class providing work for their bourgeoisie masters?

If so, then yes they are part of the proletariat and are therefore oppressed.

That they killed Indians at some point in the past as the exploited instruments of the imperialists is quite irrelevant to this fact; because it wasn't really the settlers that were oppressing the Indians, but those who were using the settlers for the purpose of oppressing the Indians, the capitalist class. This class, in the case of the Americas, were the actual oppressors, not the rural working peoples (who were but the exploited means).

So, the theory that arming the populace will act as a check to government overreach is not entirely correct.

That is not the Marxist reason for arming the proletariat, so this in not relevant anyway and this is only an aspect of what libertarians and conservatives believe regarding gun rights; which ultimately stems from a theory of natural law.

There is no “tension” here about what box to put them in, since I am not trying to reconcile different theories. I am looking at historical facts and taking them into account when formulating a plan of action. This apparent tension is more likely due to your false dichotomy where Marxists are either European orthodox Marxists, or US SJWs.

If you deny that the white working class is part of the oppressed proletariat, then yes a tension would in fact exist; for as long as they are laborers who do not control the means of production, they are clearly proles under Marxian definitions. If you deny that they need to be liberated and only focus on the dynamics of dominance-oppression, then yes you are using Marcusing cultural-marxist notions whether you are cognizant of such or not.

So, are the white working class part of the oppressed proletariat?

Yes or No?

[ingliz]

ask a Bolshevik

Many Bolsheviks, particularly Kamenev and Zinoviev, adhered to the view that insurrection was synonymous with Blanquism and was anti-Marxist.

Lenin's view was "a military conspiracy is Blanquism if it is not organised by the party of a definite class" but then he talks of the "advanced workers" taking advantage of the revolutionary situation.

So much talk of the masses in the abstract and it is the "advanced workers" whose task it will be to overthrow the Provisional government.

[Pants-of-dog]

Are they a laboring class providing work for their bourgeoisie masters?

If so, then yes they are part of the proletariat and are therefore oppressed.

That they killed Indians at some point in the past as the exploited instruments of the imperialists is quite irrelevant to this fact; because it wasn't really the settlers that were oppressing the Indians, but those who were using the settlers for the purpose of oppressing the Indians, the capitalist class. This class, in the case of the Americas, were the actual oppressors, not the rural working peoples (who were but the exploited means).

Your simplistic theorising is not relevant.

And even if it were, it would not matter. I am not discussing Marxist theory from a European perspective. I am discussing Marxist action from an American (the Americas, not the USA) perspective.

That is not the Marxist reason for arming the proletariat, so this in not relevant anyway and this is only an aspect of what libertarians and conservatives believe regarding gun rights; which ultimately stems from a theory of natural law.

And libertarians and conservatives are, minimally, partly incorrect.

If you deny that the white working class is part of the oppressed proletariat, then yes a tension would in fact exist; for as long as they are laborers who do not control the means of production, they are clearly proles under Marxian definitions. If you deny that they need to be liberated and only focus on the dynamics of dominance-oppression, then yes you are using Marcusing cultural-marxist notions whether you are cognizant of such or not.

So, are the white working class part of the oppressed proletariat?

Yes or No?

As I said, it does not matter. I am not discussing Marxist theory from a European perspective. I am discussing Marxist action from an American (the Americas, not the USA) perspective.

The actual question is whether or not they support colonialism.

As for your question, I lived for some time in a country where trade unionists were rounded up and sent to death camps to be tortured and killed. For me, that is oppression.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Your simplistic theorising is not relevant.

And even if it were, it would not matter. I am not discussing Marxist theory from a European perspective. I am discussing Marxist action from an American (the Americas, not the USA) perspective.

Marxism is an internationalist movement and ideology, and under such proletarians are defined as a working class that does not control the means of production and which is being exploited by the owner-class. The "perspective" is quite irrelevant. In fact, such post-modernist speak is giving away the tension in your views once again.

And libertarians and conservatives are, minimally, partly incorrect.

Only if you regard the idea that using your arms to support the government in circumstance "X" implies that you cannot use them to oppose that same government in circumstance "Q"

However, since that claim is about as retarded as a claim can possibly be, you are the one who is incorrect.

The actual question is whether or not they support colonialism.

No its not, because that would only be evidence that they were being manipulated by the imperialist class, which is a common historical phenomena acknowledged by Marx.

But I asked you a question and I expect you to answer it.

Are the white working class in the United States part of the oppressed proletariat?

Yes or No?

[Pants-of-dog]

Marxism is an internationalist movement and ideology, and under such proletarians are defined as a working class that does not control the means of production and which is being exploited by the owner-class. The "perspective" is quite irrelevant. In fact, such post-modernist speak is giving away the tension in your views once again.

Only if you regard the idea that using your arms to support the government in circumstance "X" implies that you cannot use them to oppose that same government in circumstance "Q"

However, since that claim is about as retarded as a claim can possibly be, you are the one who is incorrect.

No its not, because that would only be evidence that they were being manipulated by the imperialist class, which is a common historical phenomena acknowledged by Marx.

But I asked you a question and I expect you to answer it.

Are the white working class in the United States part of the oppressed proletariat?

Yes or No?

Let us start from your incorrect assumption that Marxists are either orthodox Marxists in the Stalinist sense, or cultural Marxists.

Are the EZLN the former or the latter?

This is, of course, a trick question meant to illustrate the absurdity of your false dichotomy.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Let us start

No, lets start with you answering the question I asked several times already.

You are not free to simply dodge the questions you are being asked and ask your own as if that if proper debate.

Its not.

If you want me to answer your questions, you need to start by answering mine.

Are the white working class in the United States part of the oppressed proletariat?

Yes or No?


I'm also glad that we agree that your argument against the libertarian position was stupid and that you dichotomy between american and european marxian perspectives was likewise stupid.

[Pants-of-dog]

I actually answered your question already.

And when you start doing this thing where you stamp your proverbial foot and demand things from me, it makes me want to stop talking to you. It does not make me want to answer your questions.

Do you think they are oppressed? If so, why?

[Victoribus Spolia]

it makes me want to stop talking to you.

Would you? REALLY?

Don't tease me with such pleasurable suggestions.

I actually answered your question already.

No you didn't.

Answer the question:

Are the white working class in the United States part of the oppressed proletariat?

Yes or No?

[Pants-of-dog]

I once worked with a plumber who owned his own business, and also had real estate and corporate investments.

Considering the fact that he owned the means of production and made money off the work of others without doing any work himself, he was definitely one of the bourgeoisie and not a proletariat. Plumbers are considered working class, though.

At the same time, I also worked with many other people in construction who owned only their tools and, if they were lucky, a car.

So, the answer to your question is: it depends. Sometimes white working class people are part of an oppressed proletariat, and sometimes they are not.

Now, are the EZLN “orthodox” Marxists or “cultural Marxists”? Or can we say that this dichotomy does not adequately encompass all Marxists?

[Drlee]

Is it true that consistent communists and leftists SHOULD be pro-gun and support a broad (conservative) interpretation of the Second Amendment and even support the reversal of the automatic weapons ban that was implemented back in the 1980s? I think so. (This of course assuming that leftists are more than just lying and opportunistic statists)

Coming back around to the original subject.

My answer is still no. I believe that a true far left or communist person, at least in the US, would not favor an armed populace. Why? Just look at it. Looking at the last election alone there were 45 million Trump voters, in all likelihood the majority of whom are armed. There were more than that many who voted for Clinton, only a tiny fraction of them even moderately left wing. Many if not most of them armed.

One in three Americans own arms and there are plenty of them out there to arm even more. I could are a few myself. Marxism is strongest among millennials but even so they are overwhelmingly capitalists with socialist leanings. They are what most of us would think of as democrats. 55% say communism is still a major problem in the world. (As an aside, I wonder where they would find it outside of, perhaps, Cuba, but then I digress.) Finally the US Communist Party claims a membership of less than 10,000. (I can't find the number but at one time this was true.)

So why, as VS asked, in the name of all that is holy, would communists or even hard-core Marxists in the united states want to go up against 200,000,000+ plus armed people who are pissed at them and an army of over a million trained soldiers who would like nothing more than rolling them up like a rug. (Leaving our very conservative police out of it for no reason but to put a point on the absurdity of an armed Marxist rebellion in the US.)

Bernie Sanders. The peaceful foot in the door that makes my argument.

On edit. Note that there are over 21 million veterans in the US, most of them still functional, and all trained to fight. They were trained from day one to dislike communists. And into this arena we are expected to believe that hard core Marxists believe that converting all of these people to their way of thinking, to the extent that they would give up their life lessons and turn firearms on their own children, over a political disagreement?

Right.