[ingliz]

Would it have made sense, given Lenin's system, to have called for the Tsar to disarm the working class in Russia in 1916?

It wouldn't have made a ha'porth of difference.

Troops loyal to the Bolsheviks took control of the telegraph, power station, strategic bridges, post office, train stations, and state bank. Control of these and other posts within the city were handed over to the Bolsheviks with barely a shot fired.

[Potemkin]

Really Potemkin? You expect to get away with that?

So let me see. You will argue that our prison population is the result of capitalism which, by its very nature, creates permanent underclasses. Those 'naturally' turn to crime. Except it does not hold true across capitalist nations.

The US's huge prison population is a result of BOTH a permanent underclass largely defined by race and a disgruntled middle class crying in anger against crime. This is absolutely nothing like the political prisoners under Stalin. Stalin was not dealing with racism, poverty, crime and thuggery. He was dealing with a potential counterrevolutionary movement.

Actually, Stalin was dealing with poverty, crime and thuggery. The vast majority of the prisoners in the Gulag were common criminals, not political prisoners. If you read Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago, he spends a large part of his time decrying the behaviour of the common criminals in the Gulag system, and the way they used to brutally exploit and victimise the political prisoners. Suppressing common criminals was the main purpose of the Gulag; sweeping political prisoners into it was merely a useful bonus. Which is also true for the American prison-industrial complex too - people like the Black Panthers, Angela Davis et al were swept into it as a way of 'tidying up' America's political landscape.

The US's crime problem, incorrectly remediated with long sentences to the point that 1 in 18 men are under correctional control. One in 13 black men under correctional control with over 20% of the ones on probation or parole headed to prison eventually.

The problem in the black community is far to complex to argue, off topic, here. But suffice it to say that the issues that led Stalin to choose to send people to the gulags or kill them out of hand are quite different from those causing the US to incarcerate large numbers of people. Ironically, it is out government, responding to the demands of racists and refusing to tap the wealthy for the money for real solutions that is making locking people up preferable to helping them up.

As I said, different nations find different solutions to the problem of 'conserving the revolution', since different nations experience different historical problems (e.g., the racism of American society is a legacy of centuries of the 'peculiar institution' of slavery, which is a problem which Russia does not share). All such solutions, of course, tend to involve incarceration; the Second Amendment is probably why the US tends to resort to incarceration more frequently than Russia did even under Stalin. An armed underclass is a dangerous underclass.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Victoribus Spolia

For the third or fourth time, are the EZLN orthodox according to your arbitrary dichotomy?

For someone who gets so adamant about having their questions answered, you do not seem to reciprocate in kind.

[Victoribus Spolia]

For the third or fourth time, are the EZLN orthodox according to your arbitrary dichotomy?

Dunno, Don't care, and like I said before (using a common answer of yours), It Depends.

For someone who gets so adamant about having their questions answered, you do not seem to reciprocate in kind.

How does it feel?

It wouldn't have made a ha'porth of difference.

Thats not what I'm asking though.

I am asking if it would have made sense, according to Leninism, for the supporters of Lenin to call for the banning or restriction of gun possession in 1916?

Yes or No?

[ingliz]

I am asking if it would have made sense

Politically... It always helps if the ruled feel invested in the new regime.

Practically... It would have made not a ha'porth of difference.

Ideologically... 'Ideology' can always be tweaked.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Politically... It always helps if the ruled feel invested in the new regime.

Practically... It made not a ha'porth of difference.

Ideologically... 'Ideology' can always be tweaked

Are you intentionally trying to make this unnecessarily difficult?

Its a simple question that requires a simple answer.

[Pants-of-dog]

Dunno, Don't care, and like I said before (using a common answer of yours), It Depends.

My point is that Marxism encompasses a diverse set of viewpoints because of the unique historical conditions under which each example manifests.

You can arbitrarily define a certain example of Marxism as the "orthodox" one, and then see if other examples are consistent with this particular example, but it would be pointless unless you also examined why some are consistent and some are not.

This would then require research into the material conditions unique to each Marxist example.

I think that if you did do such research, you would see that this dichotomy of "orthodox Marxist versus cultural Marxist" is incorrect.

How does it feel?

It does not feel like anything. I am treating this particular example as a minor concession on your part about the diversity of Marxist thought and practice.

Thats not what I'm asking though.

I am asking if it would have made sense, according to Leninism, for the supporters of Lenin to call for the banning or restriction of gun possession in 1916?

Yes or No?

I do not think this is the right question to ask.

I would ask if if it would have made sense, according to conditions at the time, for the supporters of Lenin to call for the banning or restriction of gun possession in 1916.

[annatar1914]

But didn't you acknowledge that the reason that the working class had such guns was because of the liberal gun laws at the time prior to the changes made in 1918?

How about you answer my question now;

I am asking you if it would have made sense, given Lenin's system, to have called for the Tsar to disarm the working class in Russia in 1916?

Yes or No?

@annatar1914 and @Potemkin, feel free to answer this question as well.

I wouldn't mind hearing @Bulaba Jones and @Red_Army's opinion on this too.

@Victoribus Spolia ,

It would have made no sense whatsoever for Lenin or any other Communist leader to support a hypothetical move by the Tsar to disarm Russian citizens in 1916. Not only on the level of civilian armament which was considerable (some villages and towns even had, along with their local militias, their own small artillery pieces before 1917!), but also in the context of World War One which Russia had been fighting since 1914. It would have been not only impossible but also insane, as hundreds of thousands of Russian men were armed and in the military, and when the military began to collapse after the February Revolution most soldiers kept their guns and other weapons and equipment...

[ingliz]

@Victoribus Spolia

spontaneity

July Days

"At five o’clock in the afternoon [July 3] there came out, armed, the First Machine Gun, a part of the Moscow, a part of the Grenadier, and a part of the Pavlovsky regiments. They were joined by crowds of workers ... By eight o’clock in the evening, separate parts of regiments began to pour towards the Palace of Kshesinskaia, armed to the teeth and with red banners and placards..."

- Izvestia.

Lenin refused to meet them.

"Take power, you son of a bitch, when it is handed to you!"

- A protester to Viktor Chernov, July 3 1917.

Next morning,

"Unknown persons... are summoning you into the streets under arms, and that proves that the summons does not come from any of the Soviet parties."

- Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party and the Soviet, Pravda, July 4 1917.

Since the Party was the sole guardian of the proletariat and the revolution, any attempt by the workers to make a revolution without the Party must clearly be wrong or indeed impossible, as Trotsky argues in his History of the Russian Revolution. When the workers disavow the Party in practice, the Party simply disavows the practice of the workers.

"Spontaneous conception is still more out of place in sociology than in natural science."

- Leon Trotsky, History of the Russian Revolution.


NB. "Unknown persons... are summoning you into the streets under arms, and that proves that the summons does not come from any of the Soviet parties."

My emphasis.

[Potemkin]

@Victoribus Spolia


July Days

"At five o’clock in the afternoon [July 3] there came out, armed, the First Machine Gun, a part of the Moscow, a part of the Grenadier, and a part of the Pavlovsky regiments. They were joined by crowds of workers ... By eight o’clock in the evening, separate parts of regiments began to pour towards the Palace of Kshesinskaia, armed to the teeth and with red banners and placards..."

- Izvestia.

Lenin refused to meet them.

"Take power, you son of a bitch, when it is handed to you!"

- A protester to Viktor Chernov, July 3 1917.

Next morning,

"Unknown persons... are summoning you into the streets under arms, and that proves that the summons does not come from any of the Soviet parties."

- Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party and the Soviet, Pravda, July 4 1917.

Since the Party was the sole guardian of the proletariat and the revolution, any attempt by the workers to make a revolution without the Party must clearly be wrong or indeed impossible, as Trotsky argues in his History of the Russian Revolution. When the workers disavow the Party in practice, the Party simply disavows the practice of the workers.

"Spontaneous conception is still more out of place in sociology than in natural science."

- Leon Trotsky, History of the Russian Revolution.


NB. "Unknown persons... are summoning you into the streets under arms, and that proves that the summons does not come from any of the Soviet parties."

My emphasis.

Lenin had made the tactical calculation (which turned out to be correct) that the Provisional Government would be able to crush the July uprising. It was premature, like playing the right move at the wrong time in a game of chess. It could only result in defeat. In fact, the July Days are a prime example of why Lenin's vanguardism was correct. Spontaneity, being unguided, usually ends badly. Enthusiasm and numbers are no substitute for calm, rational calculation. In fact, both are needed, acting together to make a Revolution.

[Victoribus Spolia]

This is my last post on this thread as it is pretty evident how the consistent Marxists/Stalinists feel on this based on their posts and votes.

Likewise, I am tired of repeating the same question over and over, no matter how amusing the dodging and evasion has been.

This would then require research into the material conditions unique to each Marxist example.

I think that if you did do such research, you would see that this dichotomy of "orthodox Marxist versus cultural Marxist" is incorrect.

Pants,

When it gets to the point that your system is allegedly so complex that it can't answer simple questions like "are the white working class in the U.S. part of the oppressed proletariat" or

"would it benefit the goal of proletarian revolution to support the bourgeois state's restriction of firearms to the masses right now"

It becomes obvious your system is so hopelessly ambiguous, broad, and divided that it could never hope to liberate the simple working folks who are typically far less educated and nuanced as myself and who would have zero tolerance for such beating-around-the-bush and double-speak sophistry.

Its pathetic really, but its also quite comforting.

You have proven, beyond doubt, how hopelessly out-of-touch the left is with the working class when it can't even approximate a plain answer to a plain question.

Likewise, the answers you are avoiding are simple and a viable system would be able to give simple, consistent, and compelling answers to these questions; whereas, you wish to contextualize everything into virtual meaninglessness.

These questions are almost rhetorical...(and this goes for you too @ingliz as you are even more evasive and dodgy than Pants, which is saying something).

1. How the fuck would it have made sense to a system advocating violent proletarian revolution to request and support the enemies of that revolution in disarming or limiting the capabilities of the revolution?

2. How the fuck can you say that the white working class isn't working class (proletarian); if Marxism teaches that the working (labor) class is proletarian by definition?

You say: "well its complicated"

Which means: "my system is an ambiguous load of hogwash that is trying to reconcile incompatible notions and still hasn't figured that shit out."

The point is, identity politics that seeks to demonize and demoralize the white working class is counter-productive to keeping the proletarian united and focused on attaining a class consciousness as requisite to organization in the efforts of revolution. Likewise, it is also true that any support whatsoever for notions, ideas, parties, and policies favoring the restricting of this class's access and possession of the firearms needed to their eventual seizing and defending their control of the means of production (by supporting the enemies of this class no less, the bougie-controlled-state's-regulations); is asinine.

No amount of "nuance" and "contextualizing" can unseat these truths.

Its that simple, and those on this thread trying to dodge this question are doing so for reasons that are apparent to anyone who is causally observing.

The logic is unassailable, but some on here think sophistry is more convenient as it gets them out of a bind created by their own inconsistency and hatred for a particular aspect of the class they allegedly are supposed to be supporting and it also gets them out of supporting the obvious revolutionary policies that would keep them out of bed with statist neo-libs who they can't help but blow since selling-out for popularity with the "Elites" is apparently irresistible. Who wants to talk guns with a bunch of uneducated white men anyway? Yuck.

Its glorious.

Thank you.

This has been GREAT.

[ingliz]

Lenin had made the tactical calculation...

Agreed.

But VS's argument seems to be we should leave the tactics to a "bunch of uneducated white men" and trust in spontaneous, disorganised, individual action.

would it benefit the goal of proletarian revolution to support the bourgeois state's restriction of firearms to the masses right now

If the conditions are ripe for revolution, it would not make a ha'porth of difference what you supported.

Small arms are easy to acquire, banned or not.

[B0ycey]

More importantly, Pote what are the odds of a successful revolution under the right conditions within the UK when taking into account our current gun laws? 0%?

[ingliz]

@B0ycey

Gun laws? Hypothetically, you are supposed to be a revolutionary!

Small arms are easy to acquire, banned or not.

[Pants-of-dog]

This is my last post on this thread as it is pretty evident how the consistent Marxists/Stalinists feel on this based on their posts and votes.

Likewise, I am tired of repeating the same question over and over, no matter how amusing the dodging and evasion has been.

Your question is too simplistic to be useful.

Pants,

When it gets to the point that your system is allegedly so complex that it can't answer simple questions like "are the white working class in the U.S. part of the oppressed proletariat" or

"would it benefit the goal of proletarian revolution to support the bourgeois state's restriction of firearms to the masses right now"

It becomes obvious your system is so hopelessly ambiguous, broad, and divided that it could never hope to liberate the simple working folks who are typically far less educated and nuanced as myself and who would have zero tolerance for such beating-around-the-bush and double-speak sophistry.

Its pathetic really, but its also quite comforting.

You have proven, beyond doubt, how hopelessly out-of-touch the left is with the working class when it can't even approximate a plain answer to a plain question.

Likewise, the answers you are avoiding are simple and a viable system would be able to give simple, consistent, and compelling answers to these questions; whereas, you wish to contextualize everything into virtual meaninglessness.

No.

Marxism deals with reality. It deals with the messiness of actual politics.

Your question is just too simplistic to be useful or to reflect actual historic contexts.

I doubt that the EZLN feel like they are out of touch with the working class and indigenous people who they protect, just like the working class migrants who I grew up with and who fought for Marxism in Latin America were able to relate to their fellow working class people.

You are approaching this as an an-cap would: by taking a philosophical point and trying to deduce a policy from that. Marxists do not work that way. We begin with historical facts, and then analyse the conditions surrounding these facts, and then make policies that reflect this knowledge.

These questions are almost rhetorical...(and this goes for you too @ingliz as you are even more evasive and dodgy than Pants, which is saying something).

1. How the fuck would it have made sense to a system advocating violent proletarian revolution to request and support the enemies of that revolution in disarming or limiting the capabilities of the revolution?

2. How the fuck can you say that the white working class isn't working class (proletarian); if Marxism teaches that the working (labor) class is proletarian by definition?

You say: "well its complicated"

Which means: "my system is an ambiguous load of hogwash that is trying to reconcile incompatible notions and still hasn't figured that shit out."

The point is, identity politics that seeks to demonize and demoralize the white working class is counter-productive to keeping the proletarian united and focused on attaining a class consciousness as requisite to organization in the efforts of revolution. Likewise, it is also true that any support whatsoever for notions, ideas, parties, and policies favoring the restricting of this class's access and possession of the firearms needed to their eventual seizing and defending their control of the means of production (by supporting the enemies of this class no less, the bougie-controlled-state's-regulations); is asinine.

No amount of "nuance" and "contextualizing" can unseat these truths.

Its that simple, and those on this thread trying to dodge this question are doing so for reasons that are apparent to anyone who is causally observing.

The logic is unassailable, but some on here think sophistry is more convenient as it gets them out of a bind created by their own inconsistency and hatred for a particular aspect of the class they allegedly are supposed to be supporting and it also gets them out of supporting the obvious revolutionary policies that would keep them out of bed with statist neo-libs who they can't help but blow since selling-out for popularity with the "Elites" is apparently irresistible. Who wants to talk guns with a bunch of uneducated white men anyway? Yuck.

Its glorious.

Thank you.

This has been GREAT.

Well, you are doing your swearing angry boy thing. And you still refuse to answer questions and keep asking them and then getting your panties in a twist when we do not answer them. So, your questions will remain unanswered until you calm down and follow your own rules.

If you want to refuse to learn the history, economics, and other things that are required for decent marxist analysis, then fine. No one is forcing you to learn, but there is no reason to accuse others of not understanding when it is obvious that you do not.

Nothing I have said demonises or demoralises the white working class. If you wish to claim that I did, please quote me.

Now, if a working class person is virulently anti-Marxist, and would use guns to shoot and kill actual marxists, indigenous people fighting against colonialism, and working class people of colour, would it make more sense for Marxists to not arm this person, or should they arm him simply because some ancap who focuses too much on simplistic logic and not enough on history decided it was “consistent”?

[B0ycey]

Small arms are easy to acquire, banned or not.

That has been my argument. Marx states that the working class should not give up their arms. Nor should revolution exclude the notion of smuggling them in. But the OP is about current gun laws. Pote supports the OP so he supports current US gun laws for the revolution in the UK. Why? Is it because he thinks the odds are impossible under the right conditions given the current UK guns laws? Or is it because of something else?

Also Ingliz, I am not a Marxist even though I respect him and consider him a genius. If Communism is to be achieved I would prefer it to be done democratically.

[ingliz]

are the white working class in the U.S. part of the oppressed proletariat

Objectively: Yes.

Subjectively: No.

Ideological and institutional processes mislead members of the proletariat and other class actors within capitalist societies.

False consciousness:

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

- John Steinbeck

Such a belief or something like it is said to be required in economics with its presumption of rational agency; otherwise wage laborers would be the conscious supporters of social relations antithetical to their own interests, violating that presumption.

[Potemkin]

That has been my argument. Marx states that the working class should not give up their arms. Nor should revolution exclude the notion of smuggling them in. But the OP is about current gun laws. Pote supports the OP so he supports current US gun laws for the revolution in the UK. Why? Is it because he thinks the odds are impossible under the right conditions given the current UK guns laws? Or is it because of something else?

As ingliz has pointed out, in the event of a revolution then the gun laws will become meaningless. Revolutions, by definition, are unlawful acts. Revolutionaries are not going to obey gun laws.

My own position is that, as a matter of principle, I oppose gun laws. The working class should be armed and dangerous. However, in practical terms, I recognise with ingliz that in a truly revolutionary situation it's not going to matter a damn what the gun laws happen to be. The working class will be so enraged at the status quo, and so desperate to end it, that gun laws will become meaningless. Obviously, we're not at that stage yet, and until we are I oppose restrictions on gun ownership as a matter of principle.

Also Ingliz, I am not a Marxist even though I respect him and consider him a genius. If Communism is to be achieved I would prefer it to be done democratically.

Whether or not communism can be achieved democratically depends on the capitalists. The historical evidence suggests that they would not be in favour. Lol.

[B0ycey]

As ingliz has pointed out, in the event of a revolution then the gun laws will become meaningless. Revolutions, by definition, are unlawful acts. Revolutionaries are not going to obey gun laws.

Exactly. So why is it consistent of a Marxist (Leftist is too ambiguous) to be pro gun? They can be, like you are. But if they just accept that guns will be available when needed they don't have to live in a society full of gun crime until the conditions of revolution is ripe do they?

Whether or not communism can be achieved democratically depends on the capitalists. The historical evidence suggests that they would not be in favour. Lol.

The UK will have a socialist leader despite the Capitalists in the next general election so they are not the rulers of everything, just influential. Communism can be achieved given the right conditions - even democratically.

Although you missed my question Pote. Regardless of your personal morals, do you accept that even in the UK there is a chance of revolution?

And finally comrade, how is your campaign going for liberal gun laws? Have you cracked the SNP yet?

[ingliz]

they are not the rulers of everything, just influential.

Wrong.

A 'socialist leader' in the UK must work within the capitalist system, they wouldn't last long if they strayed (See the 1968 plot), so it is hardly socialism.

Capitalists are the rulers of everything.