Should Consistent Leftists Be Pro-Gun? - Page 6 - 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%
#14954446
I just want people to be shot less, from other people, from police, from the military, whatever.

There's ground between being maniacally pro-gun and wanting to melt them all down as well.

Not that I'm a leftist by any means of course.
#14954458
Sivad wrote:That's easy, end the war on drugs and abolish mass industrial education. You're never getting the guns.


Image

interesting how you see a correlation between government fucking with what should be privately retained through free enterprise and social disfunction.
#14954459
Pants-of-dog wrote:I think it is more complicated than @Potemkin says there, but I think he would also agree that he is simplifying things there.

I agree that the working class should be armed and dangerous.

I also agree that the ruling class has no interest in giving up power without a fight.

However, I would not limit myself to assault rifles.

All of this should be clear to those who read the linked discussion.


Okay then, lets make this a negative question.

Would you oppose gun control regulations that would in any way hinder the working class's access to semi-automatic rifles RIGHT NOW? Yes or No?
#14954462
Sivad wrote:When a crisis is about to be reached the ruling class can always just institute social democratic reforms and then gradually shift to neoliberalsim as those reforms erode over the course of some decades. Theoretically they could cyclically dole it out and claw it back forever, capitalism isn't going away any time soon.


@Sivad

What they can't do Sivad, is find cheaper and cheaper resources or combat the overall falling rate of profit, globally. What new markets are there? Where is the last of the easily recoverable oil? They are on borrowed time.

@Victoribus Spolia

VS, you stated that;

Why they aren't more bold on such points in threads where gun control is being debated is somewhat beyond me, but the fact is, like it or not, Right-Libertarianism and Communism share this same basic premise (without qualification); that the common man should be able to retain military grade weapons to use against the current state if necessary. The reasons may be different, but that basic premise is in fact a shared one.


Yes, obviously ''if necessary'' for different reasons. As a Statist as well as a Socialist/Communist, Revolution is of course necessary at certain bottleneck periods in human history. As an Orthodox Christian, I am enjoined to obey the rulers no matter who they are, as they are ordained of God. It's pretty simple how those two are reconciled, because revolutions occur against regimes that are not ordained by God, but are the regimes of Usurpers and Tyrants, and so are as if there is no government at all. The Bolsheviks did not overthrow the Tsar for example, they overthrew the ''Provisional Government'' that removed the Tsar's Monarchy from power, and the ''Provisional Government '' was contesting legitimate democratic authority which had organically developed alongside the provisional ''government'' with the ''Soviets'' (Russian for ''Councils'') of workers and peasants, hence Lenin's; ''All power to the Soviets''.

The point of the digression being, that none of that would have been possible, without armed men trained and willing to do what they believed had to be done under the circumstances.
Last edited by annatar1914 on 18 Oct 2018 00:30, edited 1 time in total.
#14954463
Victoribus Spolia wrote:interesting how you see a correlation between government fucking with what should be privately retained through free enterprise and social disfunction.


Government definitely created the problem but I don't think free enterprise would solve it. Narcotics should be sold only by heavily regulated non-profits with any proceeds going to treatment and education. Schooling doesn't need to be privatized it needs to be personalized and that means giving individuals control of their allotment of education funding to start small community schools or even homeschool if they choose.
#14954465
Better than we have now @Sivad, but I am not going to state my critiques here as I don't want to derail the thread from the OP more than it has been already.

Perhaps we can debate the civil-rights conscious minarchism of your left libertarianism v. the natural order society of my anarcho-capitalism some other time in some other place. ;)

I did request for you to critique my logical argument for my system in my objective morality thread in the Agora.....did you see it?

annatar1914 wrote:Yes, obviously ''if necessary'' for different reasons. As a Statist as well as a Socialist/Communist, Revolution is of course necessary at certain bottleneck periods in human history. As an Orthodox Christian, I am enjoined to obey the rulers no matter who they are, as they are ordained of God. It's pretty simple how those two are reconciled, because revolutions occur against regimes that are not ordained by God, but are the regimes of Usurpers and Tyrants, and so are as if there is no government at all. The Bolsheviks did not overthrow the Tsar for example, they overthrew the ''Provisional Government'' that removed the Tsar's Monarchy from power, and the ''Provisional Government '' was contesting legitimate democratic authority which had organically developed alongside the provisional ''government'' with the ''Soviets'' (Russian for ''Councils'') of workers and peasants, hence Lenin's; ''All power to the Soviets''.

The point of the digression being, that none of that would have been possible, without armed men trained and willing to do what they believed had to be done under the circumstances.


I have a similar view regarding revolution from an ANCAP perspective; though I would never regard any democratic revolution as legitimate unless it was a secessionary movement (in certain cases) following a pattern of moving towards less government (such as the American Revolution and Southern secession); otherwise, I would view the principle of Christian obedience as requiring peaceful seperation inamuch as possible. I think Agorism is a really good approach to this and communists developing isolated communes is an interesting counter-example from their side of the spectrum.

The having of arms, from an ancap perspective, is about ordinary folks protecting their God-given rights from the state inasmuch as such becomes a legitimate threat to them pursuing their devotion to God and duty to their families.

Anyway Check It Out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism
Last edited by Victoribus Spolia on 18 Oct 2018 00:42, edited 1 time in total.
#14954481
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I did request for you to critique my logical argument for my system in my objective morality thread in the Agora.....did you see it?



I've been meaning to get to that. I read up on discourse ethics, performative contradictions, and estoppel, I read a couple pieces by Hoppe and Kinsella, I even watched a Hoppe lecture on youtube. I do have some thoughts and I'm sorry I left you hanging on that. I'll post a few thoughts in the next day or two.
#14954482
Sivad wrote:I've been meaning to get to that. I read up on discourse ethics, performative contradictions, and estoppel, I read a couple pieces by Hoppe and Kinsella, I even watched a Hoppe lecture on youtube. I do have some thoughts and I'm sorry I left you hanging on that. I'll post a few thoughts in the next day or two.


Take your time....looking forward to seeing your remarks whenever they come.

Thanks for looking into it.
#14954491
@Victoribus Spolia


Victoribus Spolia, you replied;



I have a similar view regarding revolution from an ANCAP perspective; though I would never regard any democratic revolution as legitimate unless it was a secessionary movement (in certain cases) following a pattern of moving towards less government (such as the American Revolution and Southern secession);


Well, as Communists and Socialists often (but not always) believe that people are not always fully aware of their own interests as citizens, it is important to safeguard Soviet Democracy (the previously mentioned councils of elected persons from the laboring classes) by having a vanguard role for a Party of Revolutionaries who actually are fully aware and well versed ideologically for the reasons steps are taken as they are in the ''Dictatorship of the Proletariat'' phase. Therefore, the question of whether it is less or more government than the previous ''Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie'' is rended somewhat moot.


otherwise, I would view the principle of Christian obedience as requiring peaceful seperation inamuch as possible. I think Agorism is a really good approach to this and communists developing isolated communes is an interesting counter-example from their side of the spectrum.


From an Anarcho-Communist perspective anyway. I do not believe that Socialism can exist without the State, personally, and I would bet that you would agree with me on this.

The having of arms, from an ancap perspective, is about ordinary folks protecting their God-given rights from the state inasmuch as such becomes a legitimate threat to them pursuing their devotion to God and duty to their families.


As a Christian and a Socialist, 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.

Anyway Check It Out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism


I will say that Agorism seems perfectly consistent with Anarcho-Capitalist thinking, to be sure.
#14954512
annatar1914 wrote:What they can't do Sivad, is find cheaper and cheaper resources or combat the overall falling rate of profit, globally.


Technological advancement solves both those problems. It makes resources cheaper and cheaper and it creates new industries so it's doubtful the falling rate of profit will ever be a problem in the aggregate.

What new markets are there?


There's billions of people in the developing world, space is gonna really open up in the next 50 years or so, and we've barely tapped the oceans. There's still enormous room for growth.

Where is the last of the easily recoverable oil?


Oil will be obsolete in a few decades. Peak oil, even if it is a thing, will just be a road bump.

They are on borrowed time


People have been saying that for over a century and capitalism has outsmarted them all.
#14954515
Sivad wrote:Technological advancement solves both those problems. It makes resources cheaper and cheaper and it creates new industries so it's doubtful the falling rate of profit will ever be a problem in the aggregate.



There's billions of people in the developing world, space is gonna really open up in the next 50 years or so, and we've barely tapped the oceans. There's still enormous room for growth.



Oil will be obsolete in a few decades. Peak oil, even if it is a thing, will just be a road bump.



People have been saying that for over a century and capitalism has outsmarted them all.


I disagree with pretty much everything you have said here, but I don't find it worth derailing the thread over. Just want to make the point in relation to what you've said, that an armed and conscious Proletariat (even if times under Capitalism are intermittently better) is still necessary because.. The Proletariat are still being robbed under Capitalism.
#14954576
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Okay then, lets make this a negative question.

Would you oppose gun control regulations that would in any way hinder the working class's access to semi-automatic rifles RIGHT NOW? Yes or No?


Semi-automatic rifles? Go ahead.

You really should read the conversation in the linked thread.

I think we should give nuclear weapons to indigenous and other poor communities so that they can control their own land. My idea is to disperse the US military’s own weapons so that they are no longer able to defend themselves as a sovereign state.

Letting farmers have assault rifles so that they can shoot trespassers or people of colour is nickel and dime stuff.
#14954583
Victoribus Spolia wrote:At the same time, I think we need to clear the air about what Communists and Leftists ACTUALLY believe if they are consistent. If you are a far-left thinker following the ideas of revolution from the likes of Marx, Che, Stalin, or Lenin.....you should be very pro-gun and be against political efforts to regulate firearms in any manner that would prevent the working class from having access to military grade weapons.

As a practical example: If you are a communist in the U.S., you should oppose any efforts by the Democrat party to ban semi-automatic assault rifles, bump-stocks, etc.

In fact, if you are hard-left in the U.S., and are consistent, you would want the full-automatic rifle ban passed back in the 1980s entirely reversed.

That is just a fact.


You conflate and confuse the argument when saying Leftist when really you mean Communist. There are plenty of Leftist, even so called hard Leftist, that want to change the system without a revolution. Perhaps I should do a Hong Wu and ask for the title to be changed. :lol:

Nonetheless it is a fact that revolution does not mean coup or that it cannot be achieved without a civil war. There are plenty of revolutions, although perhaps not completely peaceful, that didn't need to arm their supporters. For a revoution to be achieved you just need very high numbers. Marx understood this. Marx didn't call for arms either. He asked for workers to unite as they were the numbers. Downing tools would have done that for him. So perhaps it isn't consistent for Communists to want Liberal Gun laws actually.

Then there is practicality. Making a nation awash with guns also arms your opponents. It is true you want your supporters to have weapons... but not your opponents. You can smuggle in guns after all. This is just more fantasy without reality thinking.
#14954627
Then there is practicality. Making a nation awash with guns also arms your opponents. It is true you want your supporters to have weapons... but not your opponents. You can smuggle in guns after all. This is just more fantasy without reality thinking.

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?
#14954634
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?


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''.

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.
#14954651
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?


The question of course is what you are willing to accept from society today isn't it. Currently the working class are not Communist and are your enemy. Nor are they likely to be even under economic turmoil. So by accepting Liberal gun laws today you also need to accept the risk of needless deaths for a slim possibility in the future of an advantage. Although I don't think guns are actually needed for a revolution if everyone stands united so I don't think it is inconsistent for anyone on the left (actually Communists) to be pro guns.
#14954654
B0ycey wrote:The question of course is what you are willing to accept from society today isn't it. Currently the working class are not Communist and are your enemy. Nor are they likely to be even under economic turmoil. So by accepting Liberal gun laws today you also need to accept the risk of needless deaths for a slim possibility in the future of an advantage.

If we cannot persuade the majority of the working class that a proletarian revolution is in their interests, and in fact will become an urgent necessity during the final crisis of capitalism, then no amount of guns will save us or ensure the victory of the revolution. The liberation of the proletariat must be the work of the proletariat. So we should hand out the guns, and work on persuading them of the rightness of our cause before, during and after handing out the guns to anyone who wants one. I repeat: if we cannot get the majority of the working class behind us during the final crisis of capitalism, then Communism is nonsense and we're all wasting our time anyway.

Although I don't think guns are actually needed for a revolution if everyone stands united so I don't think it is inconsistent for anyone on the left (actually Communists) to be pro guns.

Indeed. And this is why it ultimately won't matter if the armed proletariat are theoretically 'outgunned' by the capitalist state apparatus. If they are the overwhelming majority of the population, then the armed forces may simply decide that it is not worth slaughtering people to try to save the system. Look what happened to Mubarak in Egypt during the Arab Spring. Lol.
#14954655
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.

EDIT

I 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. :lol:

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.
#14954659
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Also, regarding "Leftists" lets be clear that communists are the true leftists.
Communists and socialists are leftists. the True/Far/Hard Left.




Council communists are left but the tankies are just gulag capitalists.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 21

It is possible but Zelensky refuses to talk... no[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@skinster Hamas committed a terrorist attack(s)[…]

"Ukraine’s real losses should be counted i[…]

I would bet you have very strong feelings about DE[…]