[Negotiator]

"Consistent leftist" lolz.

Leftist is an insult.

The political right never has been consistent in the first place, so they complain the political left should be consistent in their eyes ?

For example, if the political right would be consistent, they would famously not have supported that the banks be rescued by the state.

Another example, if the political right would be consistent, they wouldnt spend the vast majority of welfare of the state on the superrich.

[Potemkin]

"Consistent leftist" lolz.

Leftist is an insult.

The political right never has been consistent in the first place, so they complain the political left should be consistent in their eyes ?

For example, if the political right would be consistent, they would famously not have supported that the banks be rescued by the state.

Another example, if the political right would be consistent, they wouldnt spend the vast majority of welfare of the state on the superrich.

But the political right are consistent - they consistently support the interests of the ruling class. This, of course, sometimes necessitates a certain 'creativity' when it comes to ideologically justifying some of their real-world actions. But consistency in practice trumps consistency in theory every time. Their ideology is only vaguely connected with reality anyway, so these contradictions between theory and practice are inevitably going to arise from time to time. And we all know how these contradictions are going to be settled, don't we?

[annatar1914]

But the political right are consistent - they consistently support the interests of the ruling class. This, of course, sometimes necessitates a certain 'creativity' when it comes to ideologically justifying some of their real-world actions. But consistency in practice trumps consistency in theory every time. Their ideology is only vaguely connected with reality anyway, so these contradictions between theory and practice are inevitably going to arise from time to time. And we all know how these contradictions are going to be settled, don't we?

An example of this is the recurring books since 1945 of analyzing the minds of Fascist ideologues like Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, etc... When both men can be found to have said different things on the same issue, depending on who they were talking to.

In practice, the Powers that be in the Western world have little to no interest in seeing the common folk armed, for self-defense against crime or as a revolutionary check on their power. Guarded by security details and military/police forces, unlike the rest of us, they are detached from our concerns.

In this fallen and flawed world, full of strife and contradictions, power really does flow from the barrel of a gun.

[Potemkin]

An example of this is the recurring books since 1945 of analyzing the minds of Fascist ideologues like Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, etc... When both men can be found to have said different things on the same issue, depending on who they were talking to.

Precisely. And neither of those two gentlemen would have regarded this as evidence of 'hypocrisy' or 'inconsistency'. They were being perfectly consistent in practice.

In practice, the Powers that be in the Western world have little to no interest in seeing the common folk armed, for self-defense against crime or as a revolutionary check on their power. Guarded by security details and military/police forces, unlike the rest of us, they are detached from our concerns.

Indeed. And it has ever been thus. The lower orders must be 'controlled'. But who controls the controllers?

In this fallen and flawed world, full of strife and contradictions, power really does flow from the barrel of a gun.

Indeed. Chairman Mao has often been morally condemned by Western liberals for making that remark. But he was merely stating a fact which should be obvious to any human being of sound mind who is old enough to vote. Given that fact, it is an urgent necessity that the working class be armed.

[Rugoz]

And if the working class cannot be 'trusted' with weapons, then Communism is nonsense and we're all wasting our time anyway.

So it is nonsense then.

P.S. To come back to vanguardism. Surely a vanguardist would not want to entire working class to be armed, only the class-conscious part, right?

[annatar1914]

@Potemkin

Precisely. And neither of those two gentlemen would have regarded this as evidence of 'hypocrisy' or 'inconsistency'. They were being perfectly consistent in practice.

Truly consistent, for Mussolini had been bought up as a British agent, paid to help get the Italian working classes on the side of Italy getting in on WWI, and Hitler was a Reichswehr spy sneaking around checking up on proletarian parties after 1918.

Indeed. And it has ever been thus. The lower orders must be 'controlled'. But who controls the controllers?

Nature, and Nature's God, have a way of dealing with the ''controllers''. But Revolution is often the recourse.

Indeed. Chairman Mao has often been morally condemned by Western liberals for making that remark. But he was merely stating a fact which should be obvious to any human being of sound mind who is old enough to vote. Given that fact, it is an urgent necessity that the working class be armed.

I agree. And the further arming and equipping of the people will no doubt be an education for all involved, as the realities of the situation raises the consciousness of those armed.

[One Degree]

The ‘controllers’ today (at least in most of the West) have learned not to let your suffering reach a level where you will use the guns. That is the purpose of the welfare state.

[annatar1914]

The ‘controllers’ today (at least in most of the West) have learned not to let your suffering reach a level where you will use the guns. That is the purpose of the welfare state.

The Controllers may well have used the ''welfare state'' to fool the people and stave off revolution for a time, but the crisis of late stage Capitalism dictates, the problems of the contradictions natural to Capitalism itself, that wars and austerity measures will be set up to gut the welfare programs... And revolution will once again be at the door.

Remain within the Capitalist paradigm, and only two options will eventually be before people; Fascism or Anarcho-Capitalism. But there are other options.

[One Degree]

The Controllers may well have used the ''welfare state'' to fool the people and stave off revolution for a time, but the crisis of late stage Capitalism dictates, the problems of the contradictions natural to Capitalism itself, that wars and austerity measures will be set up to gut the welfare programs... And revolution will once again be at the door.

Remain within the Capitalist paradigm, and only two options will eventually be before people; Fascism or Anarcho-Capitalism. But there are other options.

I agree the plans are to eventually gradually reduce welfare, but we will be so dependent and brainwashed by then, we will tolerate desperate conditions.

[annatar1914]

I agree the plans are to eventually gradually reduce welfare, but we will be so dependent and brainwashed by then, we will tolerate desperate conditions.

I guess I'm just one of those people that isn't a ''Blackpiller''. I think that our Elites are increasingly lazy and stupid, and historically that causes Elites to lose their grip on power, if not their lives and fortunes.

[B0ycey]

The ‘controllers’ today (at least in most of the West) have learned not to let your suffering reach a level where you will use the guns. That is the purpose of the welfare state.

And intellectual argument that I agree with from... ONE DEGREE!!

Most humans are programmed not to undertake conflict unless necessary. You get some that want to enter duels to the death when they get called names, but they are in the minority. You could argue it was welfare that prevented revolution in post Victorian Britain. It certainly was a concern from the establishment after the French Revolution. And perhaps it is welfare that is fending off anarchy in America today. It is after all a vast divided nation in terms of wealth inequality.

But sure, the working class are the numbers. If they feel the system is against them they will revolt. And I do believe welfare gives off the illusion there isn't any injustice to the capitalist model (when clearly there is) because it allows the poor a minimal standard of living without being overly deprived to fight for something.

[Sivad]

The Controllers may well have used the ''welfare state'' to fool the people and stave off revolution for a time, but the crisis of late stage Capitalism dictates, the problems of the contradictions natural to Capitalism itself, that wars and austerity measures will be set up to gut the welfare programs... And revolution will once again be at the door.

When a crisis is about to be reached the ruling class can always just institute social democratic reforms and then gradually shift to neoliberalsim as those reforms erode over the course of some decades. Theoretically they could cyclically dole it out and claw it back forever, capitalism isn't going away any time soon.

[Victoribus Spolia]

So then @Victoribus Spolia, when you refer to the left, you are not talking about Democrats or Liberlas, then?

Obviously Not. I tried to make very clear in the OP that true leftists are communists and socialists. However, I stress "consistent" because there are many "so-called" and "self-proclaimed" "leftists" that vote Democrat and support gun-control, they in particular are the object of my critique in the OP.

If not, then I am incorrect in my assessment and I am wrong.

Yes you were wrong, but I am ALSO critiquing leftists who would associate with democrat and liberal parties and politics (especially on guns), and liberals/democrats who "think" they are true leftists (revolutionary communists). Communists who support Democrats are inconsistent and Democrats who think they are communists are deluded.

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

They are if you are on the far-left, the true left. If you are a communist or a socialist of the real left, gun control is antithetical to your doctrine of proletarian revolution.

That is my point. If you are a consistent Leftist, you would want military grade assault rifles to be easily accessible to the average working class person in America (or any other western country). Full-Stop.

This implies that real Leftists should oppose efforts by the Democrat party or other liberal parties in the west to impose gun control on things like semi-automatic rifles such as AR-15s, restricting magazine size, and restricting modifications like bump-stocks. All such gun-control is counter-productive to creating an armed working class that is ready to take control of the means of production via revolution.

So do you understand my point now?

Let me know if you need explanation, but I think others ranging from @Pants-of-dog , @Red_Army, @Bulaba Jones, @annatar1914 , and @Potemkin have been pretty explicit as to what Marxist doctrine actually implies.

Why they aren't more bold on such points in threads where gun control is being debated is somewhat beyond me, but the fact is, like it or not, Right-Libertarianism and Communism share this same basic premise (without qualification); that the common man should be able to retain military grade weapons to use against the current state if necessary. The reasons may be different, but that basic premise is in fact a shared one.

Let that sink in for a bit.

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.

Good post, this does seem to be the position of the true left, I don't know why some like @Pants-of-dog want to pussy foot around about this, but what you have just argued seems to me to be in the spirit of actual revolutionary political theory.

Maybe later, when you are not swearing.

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.

Yeah......this is not true at all. I don't want commies around in Ancapistan if I can help it.....

At the same time, I think we need to clear the air about what Communists and Leftists ACTUALLY believe if they are consistent. If you are a far-left thinker following the ideas of revolution from the likes of Marx, Che, Stalin, or Lenin.....you should be very pro-gun and be against political efforts to regulate firearms in any manner that would prevent the working class from having access to military grade weapons.

As a practical example: If you are a communist in the U.S., you should oppose any efforts by the Democrat party to ban semi-automatic assault rifles, bump-stocks, etc.

In fact, if you are hard-left in the U.S., and are consistent, you would want the full-automatic rifle ban passed back in the 1980s entirely reversed.

That is just a fact.

[Pants-of-dog]

Have you calmed down enough to debate this?

[Victoribus Spolia]

Fuck Yeah....fuck fuck fuck.

Can you handle all my big bad adult words? @Pants-of-dog?

If so, answer my question.

Of all the self-proclaimed Leftists on here, you are the only one left beating around the bush for some reason.

Are you feeling insecure about some inconsistencies in your political approach?

We can discuss these.

I'm here for you.

[Pants-of-dog]

I have no idea why you get so emotional that you need to swear.

I have actually already provided a link to a thread where I give my position.

Please note that it is not the same as the conservative, libertarian, or an-cap position with respect to the second amendment.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I have no idea why you get so emotional that you need to swear.

Please provide evidence that swearing is necessarily caused by being emotional. I see no proof for this claim, its presumptuous.

I have actually already provided a link to a thread where I give my position.

You did?

Please note that it is not the same as the conservative, libertarian, or an-cap position with respect to the second amendment.

Do you agree with @Potemkin's statement here: Yes or No?

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.

Yes or No? Please explain your answer.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, i did provide a link.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I just asked you a separate question. Please answer it. Thanks.

[Pants-of-dog]

I think it is more complicated than @Potemkin says there, but I think he would also agree that he is simplifying things there.

I agree that the working class should be armed and dangerous.

I also agree that the ruling class has no interest in giving up power without a fight.

However, I would not limit myself to assault rifles.

All of this should be clear to those who read the linked discussion.