[Victoribus Spolia]

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

I don't care about his position, or your interpretation of it, we are discussing what is necessary for the revolution and what the libertarian-right wants and seeing if they are similar (in regards to weapons).

They are.

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

Please quote where I said that they should.

I do believe I specifically stated that consistent leftists would have views commensurate to that of what a broad interpretation of that amendment would imply. Period.

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

I think such should be privately owned and have stated that several times on this thread, so I am not speaking about hunting rifles. I have stated several times that I am referring to military grade weapons.

So we agree then that both right-wing libertarians and communists would support the average person having military grade weapons?

Good.

The current government is capitalist, and so are you, so the current government is not your enemy.

The current government is a state, so from my worldview it is both incompatible with capitalism and is also my enemy.

So we agree then that both of us don't like the current government and want to have military grade arms to resist such?

Good.

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.

If you are only saying that you want to fight those you oppose by manipulating the state to restrict their rights, then sure, but some ancaps are cool with this sort of pragmatism as well, its called the Pinochet-Strategy.

[SolarCross]

@Victoribus Spolia
POD has already admitted he doesn't want "average folks" to have arms, he wants only leftists to have them and that ain't you or any of the "average folks" or "working class" that you know.

[Victoribus Spolia]

POD has already admitted he doesn't want "average folks" to have arms, he wants only leftists to have them and that ain't you or any of the "average folks" or "working class" that you know.

Even granting this, in the event that he can't determine which working class person gets the gun, he should still (like @Bulaba Jones ) support the broad possession of military grade weapons right now INASMUCH as possible. Gun control of any kind is a set back to arming the working class for the revolution, and so not being able to discriminate as to which working class person gets the gun does imply that gun control ought to be pursued.

Hence, we're still back to my point in the OP.

[SolarCross]

Even granting this, in the event that he can't determine which working class person gets the gun, he should still (like @Bulaba Jones ) support the broad possession of military grade weapons right now INASMUCH as possible. Gun control of any kind is a set back to arming the working class for the revolution, and so not being able to discriminate as to which working class person gets the gun does imply that gun control ought to be pursued.

Hence, we're still back to my point in the OP.

Except no. Communists are not populists they are elitists pretending to be populists. Every working joe that gets a gun is another gun caddy for the enemies of communists. POD has already said he wouldn't want to arm his enemies. In the US context the best chance of a communist takeover is through subverting the top layers of the existing elite institutions: academia, military, media, policy makers etc. not through a popular unprising because a popular uprising would not be communist or pro-communist but rather anti-communist.

-----

Do you know of any genuinely democratic communist regimes? If communists won't let average folks have a vote why would they let them have a gun? guns > votes

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't care about his position, or your interpretation of it,

Then why did you ask?

we are discussing what is necessary for the revolution and what the libertarian-right wants and seeing if they are similar (in regards to weapons).

They are.

They seem to be similar in some ways and different in other ways.

Please quote where I said that they should.

It is implied in your poll, for one.

I do believe I specifically stated that consistent leftists would have views commensurate to that of what a broad interpretation of that amendment would imply. Period.

They seem to be similar in some ways and different in other ways.

I think such should be privately owned and have stated that several times on this thread, so I am not speaking about hunting rifles. I have stated several times that I am referring to military grade weapons.

So you think WMDs should be privately owned?

Leftists think they should be owned by the revolution.

So we agree then that both right-wing libertarians and communists would support the average person having military grade weapons?

Good.

Not really, no. See above.

The current government is a state, so from my worldview it is both incompatible with capitalism and is also my enemy.

So we agree then that both of us don't like the current government and want to have military grade arms to resist such?

Good.

If your worldview means that you ignore the fact that capitalism is perfectly compatible with the state, then you should adjust your worldview to be morw consistent with reality.

If you are only saying that you want to fight those you oppose by manipulating the state to restrict their rights, then sure, but some ancaps are cool with this sort of pragmatism as well, its called the Pinochet-Strategy.

Marxism is more complicated than that.

Are you arguing that you want to arm your enemies?

[Victoribus Spolia]

Then why did you ask?

I didn't, I posted a rhetorical question about ancaps after saying explicitly that I didn't care about his position.

They seem to be similar in some ways and different in other ways.

Never denied this, but apparently we agree on this point then? Good.

It is implied in your poll, for one.

No its not, but I clarified anyway so this is a moot point.

They seem to be similar in some ways and different in other ways.

Never denied this, but it appears that we agree on the general point then? Good.

So you think WMDs should be privately owned?

Leftists think they should be owned by the revolution.

Irrelevant to the point.

The practical point is the same, the common man could have military grade weapons.

Not really, no. See above.

Yeah, I looked at the above and it doesn't change a thing. I never said communists were libertarians/ancaps or that libertarians/ancaps were communists.

I stated both, if consistent, would support the retention of military grade weapons by the people.

If your worldview means that you ignore the fact that capitalism is perfectly compatible with the state, then you should adjust your worldview to be morw consistent with reality.

Off-Topic, why ancaps oppose the state and why communists oppose the state according to their worldview and which view more corresponds to reality is not the topic under discussion.

The topic under discussion is what their worldview, as professed, implies.

Both ancaps and commies believe that the common man should have military grade weapons in opposition to the current regimes of the world.

This is true and you agree.

Marxism is more complicated than that.

So is Anarcho-Capitalism.

Are you arguing that you want to arm your enemies?

I never made an argument either way and its irrelevant.

The state is the enemy and it regulates weaponry, I want this to go away.

This being the case, my enemy is the state and I don't want them to have weaponry.

As for the average commie (that is not the state) who has a gun? I don't care if he has a gun....if he decides to shoot at me then i'll shoot back.

However, in many ways it looks like we would be shooting in the same direction if we were consistent.

Communists are not populists they are elitists pretending to be populists.

Agreed.

Every working joe that gets a gun is another gun caddy for the enemies of communists.

Agreed.

POD has already said he wouldn't want to arm his enemies.

Sure, but none of the above matters SolarCross.

I am simply clearly the air about what Marxism teaches. I don't think the working class is leftist, i don't think communists are populists, I don't think communists are consistent because all those who support statism in part end up supporting it in whole.

none of that matters and you are missing my point. My point is that according to communist doctrine and dogma, they should support arming the working class. I don't give a fuck what most "openly" communists do in real life, I don't care what PoD said, I don't care about any of that.

The poll is about whether or not consistent communists (given their doctrines) should be pro-gun.

Thats it.

Given their worldview, they should oppose gun control and support the working class being armed to the teeth with assault rifles and hand grenades (not unlike ancaps and libertarians). Its that simple.

In the US context the best chance of a communist takeover is through subverting the top layers of the existing elite institutions: academia, military, media, policy makers etc. not through a popular unprising because a popular uprising would not be communist or pro-communist but rather anti-communist.

Yes this is happening, but this is not the communist takeover envisaged by actual communists, these are statists doing what statists do to consolidate power and wealth among themselves and they only call it "communism" and "human rights" to dupe the idiots, just like when bail-out cronies and lobbyists call themselves "capitalists" to dupe libertarians and those on the right. Its the same people, the crony elites, doing all of this.

Often times, actual working class communists end up falling for this by thinking such elites are friends to the sort of revolution that marx intended, but they are not.

But that too is part of my OP. The inconsistency of it all.

[SolarCross]

But that too is part of my OP. The inconsistency of it all.

Well if you are hoping to persuade the far left to join the NRA's 2nd amendment lobbying, don't bother it'll never happen. If you want to show up the hypocrisy of marxist rhetoric then fine carry on.

[Victoribus Spolia]

If you want to show up the hypocrisy of marxist rhetoric then fine carry on.

Mostly.

if you are hoping to persuade the far left to join the NRA's 2nd amendment lobbying, don't bother it'll never happen.

If I can recruit just two from ten thousand, i'd call it a good day on the lake.

In the end, I have been playing with the odd parallels between Anarcho-Capitalism and Communism; by analogy: many of the same diseases are critiqued accurately, and several of the cures are even similar, in spite of a disagreement as to what a healthy person ought to look like in the end.

Its really interesting, and this poll is a manifestation of those inner-musings.....to a degree.

[B0ycey]

You are aware the Marxist believes the Capitalist system will collapse on itself aren't you without any interference by the masses? Also, and this is important, revolution doesn't need military grade weapons or an army of armed civilians. It just needs numbers willing to work against the establishment, perhaps storm government buildings and stand up to any resistance (workers of the world unite). Also, liberal gun laws arms your enemy against you. There is actual more logic to be against free gun laws if you are a Communist. Perhaps the best way to take power is electorial. But if you want war, smuggle your weapons in and arm your supporters. Don't ask for laws that arm your enemies.

[Stormsmith]

Ghandi did rather well. Or try tanking the shock exchange. Or work to rule strikes etc etc etc

[Pants-of-dog]

I didn't, I posted a rhetorical question about ancaps after saying explicitly that I didn't care about his position.

It does point out one of the main inconsistencies of an-cap ideology: the rejection of the state coupled with the necessity of the state.

Never denied this, but apparently we agree on this point then? Good.

No its not, but I clarified anyway so this is a moot point.

Never denied this, but it appears that we agree on the general point then? [b]Good.

You think people should have access to high powered guns. I think we need to dismantle capitalist states and redistribute military weapons into the hands of socialists.

You think these weapons should be privately owned. I think they should be in the hands of the revolution.

Irrelevant to the point.

The practical point is the same, the common man could have military grade weapons.

No, the practical point is very different, seeing as how leftist control of military weapons is part of a practical program to dismantling capitalism and ushering in a socialist state, while an-caps see the ownership of such weapons as an effect of an imaginary situation.

In fact, it would be fair to say that leftists have a practical point while an-caps do not.

Off-Topic, why ancaps oppose the state and why communists oppose the state according to their worldview and which view more corresponds to reality is not the topic under discussion.

The topic under discussion is what their worldview, as professed, implies.

Both ancaps and commies believe that the common man should have military grade weapons in opposition to the current regimes of the world.

This is true and you agree.

My point is that arming the populace is part of a practical program for leftists. Thus is not the same for an-caps, because of its wholly imaginary nature.

As for having the state as a common enemy, this is also incorrect. An-caps profess to oppose the state, while simultaneously supporting an economic system that relies on the state. Marxists, on the other hand, see the state as a temporary tool that can be used against capitalism, and that will be discarded when we achieve a classless society. Neither side actually wants to destroy the state right now.

So is Anarcho-Capitalism.

Marxism is inherently more complex than anarcho-capitalism, because the former is a real thing that actually exists, while the latter exists solely in the imagination.

I never made an argument either way and its irrelevant.

The state is the enemy and it regulates weaponry, I want this to go away.

This being the case, my enemy is the state and I don't want them to have weaponry.

As for the average commie (that is not the state) who has a gun? I don't care if he has a gun....if he decides to shoot at me then i'll shoot back.

However, in many ways it looks like we would be shooting in the same direction if we were consistent.

So we agree that it would be illogical to arm our enemies.

I find it amusing that @SolarCross thinks it is a moral failing on my part to want to deprive those who are trying to kill me of their weapons, while simultaneously arguing I should be deprived of my life.

[SolarCross]

So we agree that it would be illogical to arm our enemies.

I find it amusing that @SolarCross thinks it is a moral failing on my part to want to deprive those who are trying to kill me of their weapons, while simultaneously arguing I should be deprived of my life.

That is something you imagined. My only point was that you were not speaking truly when you said you wanted to arm the "working class" (which would be arming your enemies) but only arming leftists (which you admitted later). Avoiding arming enemies is a nearly ubiquitous goal, everyone does that.

[Victoribus Spolia]

It does point out one of the main inconsistencies of an-cap ideology: the rejection of the state coupled with the necessity of the state.

I never argued for the necessity of the state. This is also irrelevant to the topic at hand.

You think people should have access to high powered guns. I think we need to dismantle capitalist states and redistribute military weapons into the hands of socialists.

You think these weapons should be privately owned. I think they should be in the hands of the revolution.

So you believe the common man, the working class, RIGHT NOW should have military grade weapons? Yes or No?

No, the practical point is very different, seeing as how leftist control of military weapons is part of a practical program to dismantling capitalism and ushering in a socialist state, while an-caps see the ownership of such weapons as an effect of an imaginary situation.

In fact, it would be fair to say that leftists have a practical point while an-caps do not.

Anarcho-Capitalism is not the subject under discussion and your feelings about them and me are irrelevant.

Do you believe the working class RIGHT NOW should be armed with whatever military grade weapons as possible in the struggle of revolution? Yes or No?

Marxism is inherently more complex than anarcho-capitalism, because the former is a real thing that actually exists, while the latter exists solely in the imagination.

Not an argument.

An-caps profess to oppose the state, while simultaneously supporting an economic system that relies on the state.

Point of contention.

This is both begging the question and a red-herring.

Marxism is inherently more complex than anarcho-capitalism, because the former is a real thing that actually exists, while the latter exists solely in the imagination.

Not an argument.

So we agree that it would be illogical to arm our enemies.

Only as I have defined.

I find it amusing that @SolarCross thinks it is a moral failing on my part to want to deprive those who are trying to kill me of their weapons, while simultaneously arguing I should be deprived of my life.

I don't really care what you find amusing.

[Rugoz]

Not necessarily. A vanguardist would only want the class-conscious proles to have weapons, not all of them, at least not until they have been reeducated. A democratic socialist could see elections in a liberal democracy as sufficient for gaining power, though an armed proletariat could be useful just in case.

[AFAIK]

So American communists shouldn't vote Republican despite the promise to arm the working class i.e teachers?

[Victoribus Spolia]

@AFAIK,

@Pants-of-dog once made the argument that only minority female teachers should have guns (no men at all) in another thread and that further gun ownership should be licensed through a panel of colored working class women.

[Pants-of-dog]

I never argued for the necessity of the state. This is also irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Point of contention.

This is both begging the question and a red-herring.

Capitalism requires the state, so any capitalist position implies support for the state.

So you believe the common man, the working class, RIGHT NOW should have military grade weapons? Yes or No?

I would say: that depends.

Anarcho-Capitalism is not the subject under discussion and your feelings about them and me are irrelevant.

Do you believe the working class RIGHT NOW should be armed with whatever military grade weapons as possible in the struggle of revolution? Yes or No?

Not an argument.

It has nothing to do with feelings.

It is an objective fact that an an-cap society has never existed.

Not an argument.

It is a point of difference between marxism and ancapism.

Only as I have defined.

This is not even a full sentence, so I have no idea what you mean.

I don't really care what you find amusing.

It is amusing regardless of your apathy.

@Pants-of-dog once made the argument that only minority female teachers should have guns (no men at all) in another thread and that further gun ownership should be licensed through a panel of colored working class women.

Did I? This sounds more like one of your misunderstandings.

I probably made a conditional statement about how gun control should be used to deal wih the situation.

And I probably pointed out in that thread that I am not a gun control supporter.

This thread seems based on the incorrect assumption that Marxists are supportive of gun control in general.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Capitalism requires the state, so any capitalist position implies support for the state.

That is not the Anarcho-Capitalist position and since the legitimacy of Anarco-Capitalism's claims are not the subject under debate; this is a fallacy called a red herring.



Since you know my position is Anarcho-Capitalism and that the necessity of a state is a point of contention, you asserting so without proof is likewise a fallacy called begging the question.

I would say: that depends.

Explain how it depends.

It has nothing to do with feelings.

It is an objective fact that an an-cap society has never existed.

Red Herring. Again.

It is a point of difference between marxism and ancapism.

Still not an argument and still a red-herring.

This is not even a full sentence, so I have no idea what you mean.

To clarify: I agree that I don't want my enemies armed inasmuch as I have defined when I answered that question originally.

It is amusing regardless of your apathy.

You keep telling yourself that.

Did I?

Yep.

I probably made a conditional statement about how gun control should be used to deal wih the situation.

You did.

And I probably pointed out in that thread that I am not a gun control supporter.

This is also correct.

This thread seems based on the incorrect assumption that Marxists are supportive of gun control in general.

On what basis do you make this claim? If anything, the OP was about a frustration I have with Marxists not being consistent on this issue of guns as evidenced by a failure to vocally and unilaterally condemn gun control regulations that disproportionately disenfranchise the working classes of the means to protect themselves from the bourgeois and to advance the future revolution of taking control of the means of production.

Thus, the very thesis of the OP assumes that actual Marxists oppose gun control.

Along these ends; please answer this question:

Do you believe the working class RIGHT NOW should be armed with whatever military grade weapons as possible in the struggle of revolution? Yes or No?

[Pants-of-dog]

That is not the Anarcho-Capitalist position and since the legitimacy of Anarco-Capitalism's claims are not the subject under debate; this is a fallacy called a red herring.

Since you know my position is Anarcho-Capitalism and that the necessity of a state is a point of contention, you asserting so without proof is likewise a fallacy called begging the question.

Red Herring. Again.

The simultaneous support for the state and abolition of the state espoused by an-caps is a contradiction that is inherent to this ideology.

It is one of the reasons why the ideology has never been realised in history.

And it is relevant in that Marxist ideas about gun control are pragmatic and practical due to histroical necessity, but an-cap ideas about gun control are simplistic and idealized.

Explain how it depends.

In a bit.

Still not an argument and still a red-herring.

Since your question is about the differences between Marxists and ancaps with respect to gun control, it is relevant. This is one of those differences.

To clarify: I agree that I don't want my enemies armed inasmuch as I have defined when I answered that question originally.

That would be one the things on which it depends.

You keep telling yourself that.

Yep.

You did.

This is also correct.

So I did not actually make that claim as something I actually support. Glad we clarified that.

On what basis do you make this claim? If anything, the OP was about a frustration I have with Marxists not being consistent on this issue of guns as evidenced by a failure to vocally and unilaterally condemn gun control regulations that disproportionately disenfranchise the working classes of the means to protect themselves from the bourgeois and to advance the future revolution of taking control of the means of production.

What you see as inconsistencies are not, actually.

You seem to think that Marxists should oppose gun control in all situations all the time. This makes no sense since Narxists would support or oppose it depending on the specific context.

Thus, the very thesis of the OP assumes that actual Marxists oppose gun control.

Along these ends; please answer this question:

Do you believe the working class RIGHT NOW should be armed with whatever military grade weapons as possible in the struggle of revolution? Yes or No?

That depends.

[Victoribus Spolia]

The simultaneous support for the state and abolition of the state espoused by an-caps is a contradiction that is inherent to this ideology.

It is one of the reasons why the ideology has never been realised in history.

And it is relevant in that Marxist ideas about gun control are pragmatic and practical due to histroical necessity, but an-cap ideas about gun control are simplistic and idealized.

We are discussing political theory, so this is still a red-herring.

If you want to start a thread on Ancaps that fine, but the position is also logically irrefutable and I can give you that argument as well if you'd like.

That would be one the things on which it depends.

Explain.

So I did not actually make that claim as something I actually support. Glad we clarified that.

No, you still claimed that, qualifications notwithstanding.

What you see as inconsistencies are not, actually.

You seem to think that Marxists should oppose gun control in all situations all the time. This makes no sense since Narxists would support or oppose it depending on the specific context.

See Below:

That depends.

Depends on what exactly? Its a very specific question:

Do you believe the working class RIGHT NOW should be armed with whatever military grade weapons as possible in the struggle of revolution? Yes or No?