annatar1914 wrote:I do not believe that Socialism can exist without the State, personally, and I would bet that you would agree with me on this.
I do agree with you on that; though voluntary communes of shared ownership did exist
en masse in the medieval period in monasteries.
Hence, I could make a very good argument that voluntary forms communism were most ubiquitous during conditions that most closely approximated anarcho-capitalism.
annatar1914 wrote:I would say that Capitalism is the ''legitimate threat to them pursuing their devotion to God and duty to their families'', especially the economic duties.
Yeah, I would say that is crazy talk, but perhaps we will get discuss this more when I post my thread on ancaps, the natural order, and neo-feudalism.
Potemkin wrote:But if the working class are the vast majority of the population, and they are being economically and politically disenfranchised by the ruling class (both of which Marx predicted would happen, and are happening), then arming the entire population would still result in an overwhelming advantage for the working class. Why wouldn't a Communist want to do that?
Exactly.
@B0ycey please note Potemkin's response above, it basically summarizes what I would have written in response to you anyway.
Also, regarding "Leftists" lets be clear that communists are the true leftists. This is why @Godstud and others bitch incessantly about people calling Democrats and liberals "leftists" because they aren't.
Communists and socialists are leftists. the True/Far/Hard Left.
Their position is easy access to military quality firearms for the working class. Full-Stop.
This is further explained by @annatar1914 here:
annatar1914 wrote:Yes Potemkin, I think that this is one of those practical issues in which a deficiency in grasping, also reveals a neglect at the level of ideology on the part of some (if not most) on the Left. It reveals a distrust of the people that cannot be truly ''Left'' or ''Revolutionary''.
This is obviously a jab at those who think gun control is consistent with true Leftist thought; and further:
annatar1914 wrote:The fear of the ruling class in all ages has been a popular Statism that works for the good of the whole people, allows the people to be armed and resist their exploitation. The ruling class knows at least on an unconscious level that a fully armed proletariat will likewise gradually redress the wrongs of a society if fully empowered. With all the mass shootings and hand-wringing by Liberals in the aftermaths of these events, calls to further disarm the people on account of ''gun violence'', this is an example, a sign, of the innate nullity and evil of Liberalism.
This basically settles the matter, even @Pants-of-dog has finally given me a sufficient answer and its basically in line with @Bulaba Jones, annatar, and Pote.
The Hard Left wants the workers of the world well armed and dangerous.
EDITI just saw your latest post @B0ycey, but I don't think it really matters.
The fact is, the proletariat shall struggle for a long time, even after the initial act of revolution, with certain "opiates" and "notions" from their pre-revolution heritage. The proletariat shall be refined for self-rule after the initial take over by the dictatorship of proletariat embodied in a Ruler who embodies the spirit of the revolution (this is a point of contention within communist circles FYI).
It is not in the spirit of communism to say that the working class cannot be trusted with guns until they ALL have their Ph.Ds in dialectical materialism.
If that becomes the standard, then communism is a farce. @Potemkin has basically said this elsewhere here, that if the working class cannot be trusted with guns to take on the task of revolution, then communism is simply a waste of time.
In the U.S., the white working class voted for the Right because they were exploited by the right (according the left).
They are the victims of bourgeois interests, this doesn't make them untrustworthy any more than a person who was deceived by an online hacker. If anything, its the Right that was untrustworthy for duping the workers into thinking that their interests will be served by them.