[Godstud]

So, then the American revolution were a bunch of leftists, according to your logic. Was the French revolution more of the same?

[SolarCross]

Communism has not been a legitimate threat since the 70's. Pretending otherwise is foolishness and fear-mongering.

The USSR didn't collapse until the early 1990s. China is still kicking around, as totalitarian as ever, even if they are supposedly capitalists now.

Still, gun control isn't anti-gun. You can be pro-gun and be pro-gun control.

Agreed.

[Victoribus Spolia]

So, then the American revolution were a bunch of leftists, according to your logic. Was the French revolution more of the same?

According to dialectical materialism, they were "leftists" in their time. The merchant-class bougoiuse were the leftists against the landed feudal lords during the early enlightenment, and those advocating for representative government against monarchy were leftists in their time, and those who were leftist then largely became the reactionaries (right) of today.

Dialectal materialism is a process which will eventually result in the abolition of capitalism, but Marx himself praised industrial capitalism as an advancement over feudalism, so from a true communist perspective, the Americans were leftists in their own time, but those today that still support those ideals are NOW reactionaries and enemies of the revolution (and therefore the left).

The development of capitalism, according to communist thought, was just as much of a necessary and positive development in its own time as its abolition will be in the future. (If you don't understand this, you really don't understand the LEFT).

The development of the state is viewed in similar terms. It arose to protect the merchant class's land claims against brutish nobles (as it evolved into representative government), but such a state will eventually become unnecessary (according to Engels) once the workers of the world are truly liberated. A dictatorship may be necessary in the interim, but is not meant to be permanent, but only to last as long as needed to fully liberate the proletariat (this is part of an in-house debate among commies, FYI).

[Pants-of-dog]

I would say that the leftists in this forum and the ones I know in real life all tend to support arming the working class.

This has nothing to do with the second amendment of the US constitution. The US constitution is an artifact of a colonial and capitalist state and has nothing to do with leftism.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I would say that the leftists in this forum and the ones I know in real life all tend to support arming the working class.

Sure.

This has nothing to do with the second amendment of the US constitution. The US constitution is an artifact of a colonial and capitalist state and has nothing to do with leftism.

Sure. But given the OP, shouldn't the support for guns among the Left be commensurate to what a broad support/interpretation of that amendment would look like?

That is, wound't the arming of the workers and the sorts of arms they should have access to be, be not unlike what right-libertarians also want?

That is, ease of access to military grade rifles, etc.?

ALSO:

Shouldn't leftists oppose parties and movements that want gun control?

[Pants-of-dog]

Sure.

Then that’s that. Debate over.

Sure. But given the OP, shouldn't the support for guns among the Left be commensurate to what a broad support of that amendment would look like?

That is, wound't the arming of the workers and the sorts of arms they should have access to be, be not unlike what right-libertarians also want?

That is, ease of access to military grade rifles, etc.?

I have no idea. Probably not.

We would be handing out actual military weapons to leftists for the purpose of using violence or its threat as leverage to destroy capitalism and to protect ourselves from the inevitable violent backlash by the capitalist state.

You guys would be...I don’t know....buying rifles in order to shoot trespassers.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Then that’s that. Debate over.

I'd like to think so, but apparently @Godstud thinks i'm just making this shit up.

We would be handing out actual military weapons to leftists for the purpose of using violence or its threat as leverage to destroy capitalism and to protect ourselves from the inevitable violent backlash by the capitalist state.....You guys would be...I don’t know....buying rifles in order to shoot trespassers.

Nah, constitutionalist guys, right-libertarians, and ancaps also want military grade weapons to protect themselves against the government as well. Both sides want to use them against the state, but for different end goals.

But thats my point, even if the reasons are different, the practical view is similar: That average folks should have access to military grade weapons.

If that is the case, it seems that we are agreed, that the left's view of what the the working class should have access to as far as firearms is the same as what the right-libertarians think those same individuals should likewise have access to.

Hell, you could even make the case that they want to oppose the same enemy with those guns, but for different reasons and ends.

[layman]

The armed citizenry of the American revolution is a bit of a myth. At least them having a pivotal role. If it were true then the cause would not have been so reliant of French arm imports and Washington’s new continental army. A professional army built on European standards. Washington was a European style soldier through and through.

In fact I don’t think armed citizens ever really win a revolution or war? Maybe occasionally but I can’t think of any right now.

[Victoribus Spolia]

In fact I don’t think armed citizens ever really win a revolution or war? Maybe occasionally but I can’t think of any right now.

Pretty much every successful communist revolution contradicts this claim.

The armed citizenry of the American revolution is a bit of a myth. At least them having a pivotal role. If it were true then the cause would not have been so reliant of French arm imports and Washington’s new continental army. A professional army built on European standards. Washington was a European style soldier through and through.

Not really relevant to the OP.

[Pants-of-dog]

I'd like to think so, but apparently @Godstud thinks i'm just making this shit up.

It seems like he is criticising the common and incorrect idea that Democrats are leftists.

Nah, constitutionalist guys, right-libertarians, and ancaps also want military grade weapons to protect themselves against the government as well. Both sides want to use them against the state, but for different end goals.

But thats my point, even if the reasons are different, the practical view is similar: That average folks should have access to military grade weapons.

If that is the case, it seems that we are agreed, that the left's view of what the the working class should have access to as far as firearms is the same as what the right-libertarians think those same individuals should likewise have access to.

Hell, you could even make the case that they want to oppose the same enemy with those guns, but for different reasons and ends.

I have never met an an-cap who wants ordinary people to have access to tanks and nuclear weapons. Leftists, on the other hand, require putting these weapons in the hands of the working class. I can even link you to a thread where @SolarCross thinks nuclear weapons should be banned for individuals while I argue that theynshould be allowed to have them, and this was back in his an-cap days.

Not only are the reasons different, but the range of weapons is different, as well as the social effects. I do not think that leftists and an-caps even share a target in the state.

The main difference is that leftist efforts to arm the working class are real things that happened in history while an-caps are just discussing thought experiments that have never happened and almost certainly never will.

[SolarCross]

I have never met an an-cap who wants ordinary people to have access to tanks and nuclear weapons. Leftists, on the other hand, require putting these weapons in the hands of the working class. I can even link you to a thread where @SolarCross thinks nuclear weapons should be banned for individuals while I argue that theynshould be allowed to have them, and this was back in his an-cap days.

That's a gross misrepresentation of that conversation, colour me unsurprised.

Not only are the reasons different, but the range of weapons is different, as well as the social effects. I do not think that leftists and an-caps even share a target in the state.

The main difference is that leftist efforts to arm the working class are real things that happened in history while an-caps are just discussing thought experiments that have never happened and almost certainly never will.

You want to arm leftists maybe but not the "working class" unless they are serving leftist interests.

[Pants-of-dog]

That's a gross misrepresentation of that conversation, colour me unsurprised.

viewtopic.php?p=14407234

Anyone is free to read it and see which positions we are supporting.

You want to arm leftists maybe but not the "working class" unless they are serving leftist interests.

Why would I arm the enemy during an armed conflict when they are trying to kill me?

[Victoribus Spolia]

It seems like he is criticising the common and incorrect idea that Democrats are leftists.

So am I, but he actually said this (note in bold):

Victoribus Spolia wrote:
"The workers should be armed so that they can defend what rightfully belongs to them (their labor and thus the means of production) from bourgeoisie exploitation. Gun control is not consistent with this at all."
I do not know ANYONE who advocates this, except you.

Hence why I said he thinks i'm full of shit for claiming exactly what you have likewise claimed, that consistent leftists support arming the working class.

That some who "claim" to be leftists will often vote for Labor or the Democrat party is merely evidence that they are inconsistent, which was part of my point.

I have never met an an-cap who wants ordinary people to have access to tanks and nuclear weapons. Leftists, on the other hand, require putting these weapons in the hands of the working class. I can even link you to a thread where @SolarCross thinks nuclear weapons should be banned for individuals while I argue that theynshould be allowed to have them, and this was back in his an-cap days.

I don't believe there should be a state, so how could such be banned if there is no state to ban it?

I am not really concerned with anyone else's views and I don't want to change the topic. I am not necessarily defending Ancaps, libertarians, or american conservatives here specifically. I am only saying that there is no reason that i can see why a consistent communist should oppose what would be implied by a broad interpretation of America's second amendment as it would imply that the common man would have access to assault and full-automatic weaponry.

Not only are the reasons different, but the range of weapons is different, as well as the social effects. I do not think that leftists and an-caps even share a target in the state.

I have just argued that I want military grade weapons to be entirely available to the working class, and that the current government is my enemy (you would agree as you believe such to be protector and perpetrator of capitalism).

Hence, the comparison is this:

We both want regular folks to have access to military grade weapons (broadly speaking) and we both view the current regimes of the world as our enemies.

If this is true, that is all I need to establish my point.

Whether ALL Marxists agree with each other that nuclear weapons ought to be used by revolutionary guerrillas and union members and whether ALL Ancaps believe that nuclear weapons will or should exists in a state of a private property absolutism are both irrelevant to the OP and off-topic and I have no interest in discussing them.

[SolarCross]

viewtopic.php?p=14400418#p14400418

This is where that tangent started for better context.

@Pants-of-dog
The point is you don't want to arm the "working class" you want to arm leftists of any class. That is the real criteria.

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't believe there should be a state, so how could such be banned if there is no state to ban it?

Ask @SolarCross. He was the one supporting that position.

I am not really concerned with anyone else's views and I don't want to change the topic. I am not necessarily defending Ancaps, libertarians, or american conservatives here specifically. I am only saying that there is no reason that i can see why a consistent communist should oppose what would be implied by a broad interpretation of America's second amendment as it would imply that the common man would have access to assault and full-automatic weaponry.

Why would a leftist care about the second amendment at all?

I have just argued that I want military grade weapons to be entirely available to the working class, and that the current government is my enemy (you would agree as you believe such to be protector and perpetrator of capitalism).

Hence, the comparison is this:

We both want regular folks to have access to military grade weapons (broadly speaking) and we both view the current regimes of the world as our enemies.

If this is true, that is all I need to establish my point.

The current government is capitalist, and so are you, so the current government is not your enemy. Only those parts that limit the rapacity of capitalism are your enemy, as far as I can tell.

And I am discussing WMDs and tanks and aircraft carriers. You are discussing souped up hunting rifles.

And I would try to keep guns out of the hands of those who oppose me, such as capitalists. I doubt an-caps would do so.

—————————-

viewtopic.php?p=14400418#p14400418

This is where that tangent started for better context.

@Pants-of-dog
The point is you don't want to arm the "working class" you want to arm leftists of any class. That is the real criteria.

Yes, I want to arm all the leftists. I would not limit it to a particular class. And?

[SolarCross]

Yes, I want to arm all the leftists. I would not limit it to a particular class. And?

Don't say you want to arm the "working class" when you really mean arming ideologically affiliated zealots and only them, that's it.

[Pants-of-dog]

Don't say you want to arm the "working class" when you really mean arming ideologically affiliated zealots, that's it.

I had no idea you would get so upset about word choice.

Anyway, you seem to have no criticism of my actual points.

[B0ycey]

Lets all pretend the "Left" is a single faction shall we!

Revolutionaries on the left should perhaps want liberal Gun laws - which would be true for the right as well. But that is only a small number of liberal socialists. Most just want equality and fairer taxes, not regime change. Although I think it imporant to note that not all revolutionary people in history actually executed violence. Just saying.

[SolarCross]

I had no idea you would get so upset about word choice.

Which says a lot about your preference for deception.

Anyway, you seem to have no criticism of my actual points.

Yes at this point I am only criticising your lying.

[Pants-of-dog]

You really like looking for reasons to feel offended.