[Pants-of-dog]

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.

I think the fact that Marxism is real and therefore has a complicated and realistic view of gun control, while an-cap ideology is not and therefore has a simplistic and unrealistic stance is a major difference between the two ideologies.

Explain.

It seems self explanatory. What part do you find confusing?

No, you still claimed that, qualifications notwithstanding.

Sure, as ling as we recognise thendifference between making a factual claim and supporting it as an ideological position.

See Below:

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?

Again, that depends.

Maybe you should clarify where, to start. The USA?

[Victoribus Spolia]

I think the fact that Marxism is real and therefore has a complicated and realistic view of gun control, while an-cap ideology is not and therefore has a simplistic and unrealistic stance is a major difference between the two ideologies.

Start a thread on it, this is not the place.

It seems self explanatory. What part do you find confusing?

The whole thing since you gave me a two word answer without an explanation.

Sure, as ling as we recognise thendifference between making a factual claim and supporting it as an ideological position.

I don't see how the distinction is relevant to the point.

Maybe you should clarify where, to start. The USA?

Well that is the context of the OP.

So that is obviously where I want you to start.

[Pants-of-dog]

Start a thread on it, this is not the place.

As long as we agree that Marxists would not have a simplistic support for gun rights like an-caps would, and one of the reasons is the inherent unreality of ancapism.

The whole thing since you gave me a two word answer without an explanation.

Here we were talking about not arming our enemies. That part should be clear to you already.

I don't see how the distinction is relevant to the point.

What point? You were just bringing up irrelevant stuff from another thread in a vain attempt to make fun of me.

Well that is the context of the OP.

So that is obviously where I want you to start.

So, are we talking all the working class people in the USA, regardless of their specific context?

[Victoribus Spolia]

As long as we agree that Marxists would not have a simplistic support for gun rights like an-caps would, and one of the reasons is the inherent unreality of ancapism.

As long as we agree that this is a red herring and begging the question and so you are committing fallacious reasoning.

Here we were talking about not arming our enemies. That part should be clear to you already.

Not really. You don't want to arm your enemies and I don't want to arm my enemies. So we are agreed then?

What point? You were just bringing up irrelevant stuff from another thread in a vain attempt to make fun of me.

Making fun of you is never done in vain.

You do all the work for me.

So, are we talking all the working class people in the USA, regardless of their specific context?

Yes.

[Pants-of-dog]

As long as we agree that this is a red herring and begging the question and so you are committing fallacious reasoning.

No. It is relevant because it is a significant qualitative difference and a reason why we do not uncritically supoort the an-cap position.

Not really. You don't want to arm your enemies and I don't want to arm my enemies. So we are agreed then?

Of course, which is why it seemed odd that you were confused.

Making fun of you is never done in vain.

You do all the work for me.

So we agree that it was pointless.

Yes.

Then that would depend.

[Victoribus Spolia]

No. It is relevant because it is a significant qualitative difference and a reason why we do not uncritically supoort the an-cap position.

Its not relevant because the OP is not about ANCAP ideology, ancaps were only mentioned per their inclusion with Libertarians and constitutionalists (who do believe in government); hence the comparison between communists and anyone of these groups is relevant to the topic inasmuch as they believe in military weapons being permitted to the general populace.

radical libertarians share this view with Ancaps, but unlike Ancaps believe in a state. Discussing Ancaps and the viability of their system is irrelevant and unessential to any argument I am making here. You are trying to change the topic using a red-herring.

Of course, which is why it seemed odd that you were confused.

Fair Enough. Moving On.

So we agree that it was pointless.

Yep. Purely for my amusement and pleasure and to annoy you into a response. Mission accomplished.

Then that would depend.

Explain how it would depend Pants.

Quit dodging and being evasive and answer the fucking question.

Or am I right that there is some inconsistencies among Marxists on this issue? That they lack a coherent political answer in REAL life?

Prove me wrong.

Answer The Question.

[annatar1914]

I voted thusly;

Yes, Consistent Leftist Thought Requires A Strongly Pro-Gun Stance and Broad Interpretation of The U.S.'s Second Amendment Rights.

Because, a true consistent Leftist (a genuine Communist or Socialist, not these fake types that are really 'Social Fascists' or outright Liberal Capitalists) believes in the capacity of the people to rise up when necessary for revolution, and being already equipped and trained to do so, organized in People's Militias, the outcome is far more successful and less bloody for all concerned. Only the wealthy and powerful Elites and their shills and dupes on the ''Right'' and the ''Left'' of the alleged political spectrum would disagree, in my opinion.

[annatar1914]

Its clear that they have. Thats why union voters now support the American right. They've been screwed over too much and are sick of that shit.

American politicians in the U.S. who "claim" to support the left have only ever supported a larger and more intrusive government that ends up oppressing the workers and farmers.

This has happened in other countries too. The workers are promised control of their nation and economy and end up having to smile and act happy in the bread line to get their rations or else the "dictator-for-life" will send them to Siberia.

Hello Missus, good to see you here, just want to say that i've been to Siberia and actually it's kind of wonderful, honestly, a real God given gift of nature and varied ecosystem. As for the rest, I don't think the American ''right'' or so-called ''Left'' is either, and not worth a damn except to the Oligarchy that controls them.

[Godstud]

So then @Victoribus Spolia, when you refer to the left, you are not talking about Democrats or Liberlas, then? If not, then I am incorrect in my assessment and I am wrong. If you are including Democrats and liberals in your definition, then I stand by what I said

As I already mentioned, you can be pro-gun and pro-gun control. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Red_Army]

I'm pretty pro gun and consider myself a socialist. I don't know why you would make this poll though - people are rarely consistent.

[annatar1914]

I'm pretty pro gun and consider myself a socialist. I don't know why you would make this poll though - people are rarely consistent.

The reasons why some are consistent and why others are not, is interesting in itself, RA my friend. On this particular issue though, I cannot for the life of me understand why a genuine Leftist cannot see that it is in the interests of the Bourgeoisie Dictatorship to keep the laboring classes incapable of resisting or rising up against their exploitation, and therefore.... Keep the Proletariat disarmed.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

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.

In spite of capitalism's contradictions, every revolution by socialists has been an armed struggle. In the USSR, the weapons were used largely by the soldiers who then formed the core of the Red Army. In China, it was the people who armed themselves. The situation is always going to be different as will the debate over the usefulness of people owning certain weapons.

Furthermore, no bourgeois democracy will allow an actual socialist party to be voted into power. It's insane to think otherwise: that the capitalist ruling class would allow itself to be voted into liquidation? For well over a century, governments around the world have systematically attacked any movement or organization perceived to be socialist. I'm surprised someone even mentioned this at all.

[annatar1914]

In spite of capitalism's contradictions, every revolution by socialists has been an armed struggle. In the USSR, the weapons were used largely by the soldiers who then formed the core of the Red Army. In China, it was the people who armed themselves. The situation is always going to be different as will the debate over the usefulness of people owning certain weapons.

Furthermore, no bourgeois democracy will allow an actual socialist party to be voted into power. It's insane to think otherwise: that the capitalist ruling class would allow itself to be voted into liquidation? For well over a century, governments around the world have systematically attacked any movement or organization perceived to be socialist. I'm surprised someone even mentioned this at all.

So in the context of America, the nation founded on Revolution and a country that theoretically gives it's people the right to revolt should government ever become tyrannical, and which enshrines the God-given right to assemble for redress of grievances and to bear arms as part of a well organized militia, it stands to reason that people should take rightful advantage of those liberties, whether they are fully educated about Socialism. the Bolsheviks rose to power on ''all power to the Soviets'' and ''peace, land, bread'', more than popular understanding of Marxist Leninist Ideology.

[B0ycey]

Furthermore, no bourgeois democracy will allow an actual socialist party to be voted into power. It's insane to think otherwise: that the capitalist ruling class would allow itself to be voted into liquidation? For well over a century, governments around the world have systematically attacked any movement or organization perceived to be socialist. I'm surprised someone even mentioned this at all.

What are you talking about? There are plenty of electable socialist platforms out there. Have you not heard of Jeremy Corbyn? Then there was Allende and the countless socialist platforms in power coalitions throughout Europe today. FYI the world is bigger than the US and it's choice of two right wing parties.

As for the Bolsheviks being Socialist, it is fascism in socialist clothing and they were pretty much handed over power due to February Revoltion revolt. Lenin wasn't even in Russia when the proletariat protested against the Tsars. It wasn't an armed struggle until the Bolserviks were in power and had to fight the white army. Originally it was Soviets standing together and uniting against the ruling elite (workers of the world unite). And I doubt the Red Army would have done themselves any favours in maintaining power by arming the white army with fully automatic weapons like the OP suggests because of liberal gun laws.

And people, let us not confuse why VS has currently got this opinion now. He now understands that the US state is the main obstacle in his Ancap dystopian wet dream and he wants the communists to help him bring down the establishment. As if the opinions of the Communists on PoFo could ever counter the patriotism of redneck America and bring down the government. But whatever. We must maintain our dreams I guess.

[annatar1914]

What are you talking about? There are plenty of electable socialist platforms out there. Have you not heard of Jeremy Corbyn? Then there was Allende and the countless socialist platforms in power coalitions throughout Europe today. FYI the world is bigger than the US and it's choice of two right wing parties.

As for the Bolsheviks being Socialist, it is fascism in socialist clothing and they were pretty much handed over power due to February Revoltion revolt. Lenin wasn't even in Russia when the proletariat protested against the Tsars. It wasn't an armed struggle until the Bolserviks were in power and had to fight the white army. Originally it was Soviets standing together and uniting against the ruling elite (workers of the world unite). And I doubt the Red Army would have done themselves any favours in maintaining power by arming the white army with fully automatic weapons like the OP suggests because of liberal gun laws.

And people, let us not confuse why VS has currently got this opinion now. He now understands that the US state is the main obstacle in his Ancap dystopian wet dream and he wants the communists to help him bring down the establishment. As if the opinions of the Communists on PoFo could ever counter the patriotism of redneck America and bring down the government. But whatever. We must maintain our dreams I guess.

I disagree on a number of points unfortunately, but the most clear case of disagreement is in your characterization of @Victoribus Spolia . I believe that the final stage of Capitalism will eventually produce two trends to attempt a resolution of the final crisis of Capitalism; Neo-Fascism and Anarcho-Capitalism, and of those options Anarcho-Capitalism will actually be the stronger. This is the condition of this late stage. We should look at this scenario dispassionately and with objectivity, and see where we ''Leftists'' fit in. Because at this stage i'd say that ''conservative'' American talking points aside mislabeling Liberals as ''Leftist'', we do not actually exist anymore.

I believe Communism/Socialism will revive in modified form, but only with correct analysis of phenomena like Anarcho-Capitalism.

[B0ycey]

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Capitalism is merely an economic platform and more versatile than people think. The only way it will collapse is if people reject it and bring forward a new platform. Humans are too greedy for Communism and too educated for Ancap. I suspect only an apocalyptic event will ever end what we today call the financial institution and even then the result will just be anarchism, not feudialism Ancap style. So believe in the fantasy. But that is all it will ever be.

[Pants-of-dog]

Its not relevant because the OP is not about ANCAP ideology, ancaps were only mentioned per their inclusion with Libertarians and constitutionalists (who do believe in government); hence the comparison between communists and anyone of these groups is relevant to the topic inasmuch as they believe in military weapons being permitted to the general populace.

radical libertarians share this view with Ancaps, but unlike Ancaps believe in a state. Discussing Ancaps and the viability of their system is irrelevant and unessential to any argument I am making here. You are trying to change the topic using a red-herring.

You have two tendencies:

One is to assume we are discussing anarcho-capitalism.

The other is to assume we are discussing the USA.

We have already discussed that the second assumption is relevant.

I assumed the first one was too, since you brought them up when you replied to me.

Explain how it would depend Pants.

Quit dodging and being evasive and answer the fucking question.

Or am I right that there is some inconsistencies among Marxists on this issue? That they lack a coherent political answer in REAL life?

Prove me wrong.

Answer The Question.

Maybe later, when you are not swearing.

[AFAIK]

There are plenty of electable socialist platforms out there. Have you not heard of Jeremy Corbyn? Then there was Allende and the countless socialist platforms in power coalitions throughout Europe today.

I don't think Allende is a great example of capitalists respecting left wing electoral victories but I'd agree that European elites are less able to utilise violence to suppress lefties.

[layman]

@Victoribus Spolia

Which ones? The Russian Bolsheviks lead a coup, followed by a civil war against the centerists. Cuba was an armed invasion, China another civil war.

I think my American example is valid when talking about the ability of an armed citizenry to overthrow s professional military of an oppressing power. There is a subtle difference between citizen armies and conscript ones that follow traditional military structures.

In terms of a revolution, I suppose the wide distribution of guns that the working class can access is more important than who actually owns them? If they were located in thousands of local gun clubs, they would be easily seized if needed for this purpose.

[Potemkin]

I voted yes. The working class should be armed and dangerous. Do you think the ruling class will abolish capitalism and liquidate themselves as a class just because enough workers vote for it? Lol! If I had my way, there would be people standing on every street corner handing out assault rifles to anyone who wanted one. And if the working class cannot be 'trusted' with weapons, then Communism is nonsense and we're all wasting our time anyway.