[Victoribus Spolia]

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.

But I defined what the proletariat was, very specifically, Obviously business owners and the petite bourgeois are not that.

So you agree that the white working class (that don't own the means of production, obviously) are part of the proletariat then?

Good.

That makes you an orthodox Marxist.

Now, are the EZLN “orthodox” Marxists or “cultural Marxists”?

How would they answer the question I asked you? That would tell me, for the most part. But I would likely have to ask them some other questions as well.

[Victoribus Spolia]

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.)

You keep saying this, but this just tells me you don't understand the OP. I will try to address this in the most respect way possible:

These armed "trump-voters" and vets are often the same people that the Marxists should want armed. We are not talking about Marxists as a clique arming themselves to take on the patriots lol. We are talking about an ideological question, does Marxist dogma require that the working classes be armed?

Don't forget, according to Marxism, the working class are an oppressed proletariat that needs to be liberated to take over the means of production, and my question was (in the op); if this is the belief of Marxists, wouldn't it imply that Marxists should support a broad interpretation of the 2nd amendment in the U.S.?

The essence of this is, if the democrat party were to change its platform to being more consistently Marxist, what would their new policy be in regards to guns?

The answer is, given the teachings of Marx and Lenin, etc, that they should be very pro-gun to the point of supporting policies that would allow the average factory worker access to military grades weapons inasmuch as possible so that they would have the means of taking over the means of production that rightfully belong to them (the idea of proletarian revolution).

That was the point. The point of the OP is what does Marxism teach or require as an ideology.

[Pants-of-dog]

But I defined what the proletariat was, very specifically, Obviously business owners and the petite bourgeois are not that.

So you agree that the white working class (that don't own the means of production, obviously) are part of the proletariat then?

Good.

That makes you an orthodox Marxist.

If your argument is that I am an orthodox Marxist, then sure.

Please note that I gave an example of a white working class person in North America who was not a proletariat.

But that would contradict your other claim in the SJW thread where you say that people who supoort trans people or think that Christianity can be a force of liberation are not orthodox Marxists.

How would they answer the question I asked you? That would tell me, for the most part. But I would likely have to ask them some other questions as well.

Well, looks like you need to do some research.

——————————-

@Drlee

Yes, from a pragmatic point of view, Marxists do not want the US “working class” armed.

@Victoribus Spolia seems unable to reconcile this fact with the theoretical notion of an armed working class.

History shows us that an armed working class will only advance the cause of the proletariat in certain contexts, and the current USA context does not fit the description.

[Victoribus Spolia]

History shows us that an armed working class will only advance the cause of the proletariat in certain contexts, and the current USA context does not fit the description.

So you disagree with @Potemkin and @annatar1914 that the working class should be armed right now?

This seems to contradict your earlier claim on this thread when I asked you about this point blank and you said that you did think they should be armed right now.

You even said that you wanted them to have tanks!

If your argument is that I am an orthodox Marxist, then sure.

Please note that I gave an example of a white working class person in North America who was not a proletariat.

You did not give an example of a proletariat, you gave an example of a petite-bourgeois with a side hustle.

But that would contradict your other claim in the SJW thread where you say that people who supoort trans people or think that Christianity can be a force of liberation are not orthodox Marxists.

No it doesn't. I argued that orthodox Christianity cannot be a force of liberation for orthodox marxism and that dialectical materialism is metaphysically atheistic, which it is.

I also argued, in agreement with other marxists and stalinist in this forum, that the obsession with racial, gender, and feminist issues at the expense of liberating the proletariat is evidence of a marcusian turn towards heterodox cultural marxism, which it is.

If the WWC are part of the proletariat, then an orthodox marxist would view the white working class as part of this oppressed class ALONG WITH minorities and that the whole of this class should be armed NOW in preparation for the revolution. Likewise, an orthodox Marxist would view ANY disarmament by a capitalist regime as ALWAYS anti-revolution and a hindrance to it.

You have basically conceded all of this, albeit begrudgingly.

But unlike other Marxists on this forum, you are a bit shaky on it because of your own inconsistencies stemming from some of your SJW sympathies.

[ingliz]

a pragmatic point of view

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun... Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party."

Mao Tse-Tung

Both Lenin and Mao believed arming the masses en masse was a very bad idea.

Political rhetoric and revolutionary tactics are two very different things.

[Pants-of-dog]

So you disagree with @Potemkin and @annatar1914 that the working class should be armed right now?

This seems to contradict your earlier claim on this thread when I asked you about this point blank and you said that you did think they should be armed right now.

You even said that you wanted them to have tanks!

You really seem to want me to give a yes or no answer to an issue that is far more complicated than that.

The answer is, and always has been: that depends.

For example, who exactly did I describe as having tanks?

You did not give an example of a proletariat, you gave an example of a petite-bourgeois with a side hustle.

So plumbers are not working class?

No it doesn't. I argued that orthodox Christianity cannot be a force of liberation for orthodox marxism and that dialectical materialism is metaphysically atheistic, which it is.

Yes, I know, but that does not change the fact that there are Marxists who see Christianity as toll of loberation, and that these Marxists are not part of, or influenced by, “cultural Marxists”.

Do you understand how your beliefs about Christianity and Marxism do not affect their beliefs?

I also argued, in agreement with other marxists and stalinist in this forum, that the obsession with racial, gender, and feminist issues at the expense of liberating the proletariat is evidence of a marcusian turn towards heterodox cultural marxism, which it is.

And I pointed out that belief is peculiar to certain types of Marxists and that other Marxists have different ideas about gender: i.e that sexism, homophobia, and transphobia divide the working class, and that Marxists should stand in solidarity with LGBT people.

If the WWC are part of the proletariat, then an orthodox marxist would view the white working class as part of this oppressed class ALONG WITH minorities and that the whole of this class should be armed NOW in preparation for the revolution. Likewise, an orthodox Marxist would view ANY disarmament by a capitalist regime as ALWAYS anti-revolution and a hindrance to it.

You have basically conceded all of this, albeit begrudgingly.

But unlike other Marxists on this forum, you are a bit shaky on it because of your own inconsistencies stemming from some of your SJW sympathies.

If you think I agreed with this, then you misread my arguments.

This is probably due to your oddly fervent belief in your false binary of “orthodox Marxists” and “cultural Marxists”.

Pethaps you just really, really, really want me to say that I want to arm the very people who would oppress me and mine, and solidify the capitalist state in its oppression of others.

Either way, I would like you to address my point about the EZLN.

And then we will discuss how Marxism is not like other ideologies in that it does not rigidly adhere to theories.

[Drlee]

These armed "trump-voters" and vets are often the same people that the Marxists should want armed. We are not talking about Marxists as a clique arming themselves to take on the patriots lol. We are talking about an ideological question, does Marxist dogma require that the working classes be armed?

Not originally you weren't. Here was your question:

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)

You are clearly speaking of the US. I am presenting an argument for why a Marxist should not want that but should rather support fewer firearms.

Don't forget, according to Marxism, the working class are an oppressed proletariat that needs to be liberated to take over the means of production, and my question was (in the op); if this is the belief of Marxists, wouldn't it imply that Marxists should support a broad interpretation of the 2nd amendment in the U.S.?

I understand. I am forwarding a practical answer. It is possible that once the unlikely happens (a Marxist takeover of the government through nonviolent means ((violent means bordering on the impossible)) the new government might support an armed populace but I highly doubt that they would. If you are in charge, why arm a potential enemy?

The essence of this is, if the democrat party were to change its platform to being more consistently Marxist, what would their new policy be in regards to guns?

If they want any chance in hell of succeeding in nudging the juggernaut to the left they would leave this issue pretty much alone short of giving their base some nominal controls on certain weapons and where weapons might be possessed.

The answer is, given the teachings of Marx and Lenin, etc, that they should be very pro-gun to the point of supporting policies that would allow the average factory worker access to military grades weapons inasmuch as possible so that they would have the means of taking over the means of production that rightfully belong to them (the idea of proletarian revolution).

That is exactly what I am arguing against in the US. You seem to be expecting Marxists to be so ideologically pure that they would destroy any chance of success. You are further imagining some "factory worker" class that is inclined to bite the hand that is feeding them. Two things wrong with that.

1. In the US one could, and I would, argue that low wage workers are not getting their fair piece of the pie. Understood. But short of a Marxist revolution, all that is required to make the US have all households hit the median income is an increase of minimum wage to $16.00 per hour.

2. You are assuming that people will accept a Marxist intellectual argument in a country that has for generations rejected it specifically and misunderstands it generally.

I wonder if Lenin would have succeeded in installing his government in Russia if the median household income had been the equivalent of $50,000 per year and Russia had been one of the richest countries in the world. And if it had been possessed of a startlingly strong military. I think not.

The fact is that at least for the time being, Marxism in the US is a solution in search of a problem.

That was the point. The point of the OP is what does Marxism teach or require as an ideology.

Again the notion that any modern movement can or will even want to be ideologically pure. Especially when it is not to its advantage to do so. Marx advocated an atheist state but he was smart enough to realize that he had to accept religion even though it stood in the way of his movement.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.[2]

This was the ideologues mantra but for all intent and purpose unachievable. Even in Soviet Russia at its most "atheist" there were still almost 50 million Christians.


I get that you want to fantasize about (or more likely lay an elaborate trap) the Marxist perfect world. Marx never lead a revolt. His followers did. They bent his philosophy to fit their own situation with a dose of their own intellectual lights thrown in. Look where you took yourself. You imagined Democrats to be moving toward Marxism. Maybe they are a tiny bit but the movement is glacial. Like I said, wait until the end of labor and see what happens. Till then? Guns are a fact of life. Marxists should not play with guns. They should play with politics.

[Potemkin]

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

So much so that they even revealed Lenin's plans to the bourgeois newspapers, even naming the exact date on which Lenin intended to seize power. This was an act of betrayal, which Lenin later said was "no accident".

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 a revolutionary situation.

Saying that the most class conscious and most political aware workers will lead their comrades in any struggle is to say nothing which any rational person would find objectionable. Vanguardism is not Blanquism.

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.

The masses in the abstract are exactly that - an abstraction. Actions are taken by particular groups and by particular individuals in those groups. Lenin had to deal in concrete actualities throughout 1917 (and after). Empty chatter about windy abstractions such as "the masses" during a time of political crisis would have been meaningless and pointless.

[Victoribus Spolia]

You are clearly speaking of the US. I am presenting an argument for why a Marxist should not want that but should rather support fewer firearms.

Yes, I was speaking of an American context. I never denied this.

I am forwarding a practical answer.

Yeah, but I was not talking about a practical answer, we already see how marxist have "practically acted" I am asking how they should act if they were consistent with their own ideology.

he new government might support an armed populace but I highly doubt that they would. If you are in charge, why arm a potential enemy?

Actually, once the marxists took over the might very well ban guns, but thats not the point. The point is whether marxists believed the proletariat need to be armed now for the purpose of revolution and if that is the case, they should oppose any and all gun control.

1. In the US one could, and I would, argue that low wage workers are not getting their fair piece of the pie. Understood. But short of a Marxist revolution, all that is required to make the US have all households hit the median income is an increase of minimum wage to $16.00 per hour.

I don't know if this is the place to offer a critique of $16 minimum wage.

You are assuming that people will accept a Marxist intellectual argument in a country that has for generations rejected it specifically and misunderstands it generally.

for the BILLIONTH time, I am not asking a practical question, I am asking an ideaological question.

What does the teaching of Marx IMPLY regarding a consistent leftist's gun policy?

You are asking what would be a pragmatic american gun policy for a care-free marxist to take?

Those aren't the same things DrLee.

Again the notion that any modern movement can or will even want to be ideologically pure. Especially when it is not to its advantage to do so. Marx advocated an atheist state but he was smart enough to realize that he had to accept religion even though it stood in the way of his movement.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

Thats all fine and dandy but I was asking what an ideologically pure marxist would be compelled to believe.

[ingliz]

@Potemkin

We agree but why you feel you have to lick VS's arse is beyond me.

[Victoribus Spolia]

We agree but why you feel you have to lick VS's arse is beyond me.

Jealous.

You can lick my arse too if you want.

[Potemkin]

@Potemkin

We agree but why you feel you have to lick VS's arse is beyond me.

I'm not going to argue against him just for the sake of doing so. Lenin wanted the working class armed and dangerous in 1917. Do you deny this?

[ingliz]

@Victoribus Spolia

Your questions are ridiculous.

What needs to be done will be done and the 'ideology' will be made to fit after (See Stalin).

[B0ycey]

I'm not going to argue against him just for the sake of doing so. Lenin wanted the working class armed and dangerous in 1917. Do you deny this?

Only the ones which supported his cause Pote. Although there are many differences to Leninism and Marxism FYI. So what are you? A Marxist or a Leninist? Or is Leninism the "New Left"

[ingliz]

Lenin wanted the working class armed and dangerous in 1917. Do you deny this?

Lenin said he wanted the working class armed and dangerous in 1917 when many were and then proceeded to disarm them in 1918.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Only the ones which supported his cause Pote. Although there are many differences to Leninism and Marxism FYI. So what are you? A Marxist or a Leninist? Or is Leninism the "New Left"

Why do you speak?

Your posts cause me suicidal thoughts sometimes they're so stupid..

[Victoribus Spolia]

Lenin said he wanted the working class armed and dangerous in 1917, and many were, and then proceeded to disarm them in 1918.

Like everyone has been telling you?

Imagine that.

[B0ycey]

Why do you speak?

Your posts cause me suicidal thoughts sometimes they're so stupid..

Do it....

[Victoribus Spolia]

Do it....

[B0ycey]

Just curious, but how does the Stalinist interpret Animal Farm? Can Napoleon really be the good guy?