Armed Populace or Organised Police [Archive]

AnthArmo

7th February 2009, 11:40

I couldn't find a discussion for this already so I've decided to post my own. Who here supports an organized and formal police or an armed populace.

Myself, I'm easily in favor of an armed populace. It worked in the Paris Commune and it can work again.

For one, if everyone's armed, people in general won't commit crimes because the risk of being caught and shot at by someone nearby is just too high. Alongside this it's more flexible, we can react to situations better than we would with a police force.

And Policemen and the military are just extra consumers who produce nothing. This way those who work also defend.

Killfacer

7th February 2009, 14:36

For one, if everyone's armed, people in general won't commit crimes because the risk of being caught and shot at by someone nearby is just too high. Alongside this it's more flexible, we can react to situations better than we would with a police force.

:confused: Pretty sure america has a higher crime rate than the UK. I'm not going to get drawn in to a stupid argument about gun ownership though, because i had one yonks ago with Freakazoid when i was restricted.

Pirate turtle the 11th

7th February 2009, 18:20

Armed and trained populace with a rota for people to deal with emergency calls

kiki75

7th February 2009, 18:33

Comrade Anarchist

7th February 2009, 18:37

neither because i dont think we need weapons. But to keep order just rely on the populace to prevent conflicts.

Pirate turtle the 11th

7th February 2009, 18:43

I don't like either of those ideas.

But, which I would prefer depends on what's happening in the world. Is this question defined by the idea that Teh Revolution has been a success and we are now all living a socialistic existence?

Apart from theirs always going to be one nutter who goes on a killing spree. Communism is not "heaven" and their will be a need for communities to defend themselves.

Pirate turtle the 11th

7th February 2009, 18:44

neither because i dont think we need weapons. But to keep order just rely on the populace to prevent conflicts.

This hippy drivel is embarrassing to say the least.

Labor Shall Rule

7th February 2009, 19:10

An abolition of police officers would be excellent—we could easily replace the regular functions of the police (public safety, service) with organized militias that are put together by local neighborhood committees.

Comrade Anarchist

7th February 2009, 19:12

This hippy drivel is embarrassing to say the least.
i dont mean to sound like a hippy what i mean is that i just dont see a point except for war and not in the domestic use.

Brother No. 1

7th February 2009, 19:24

Well Armed poulace has my vote. Even thought everyone has a gun its like the Cold war. No one has more power over the other in that while in the Police yes some have more power over the others.

Pirate turtle the 11th

7th February 2009, 19:24

i dont mean to sound like a hippy what i mean is that i just dont see a point except for war and not in the domestic use.

Having guns issued to untrained people for a war is a recpipie for fail. As is having no one to stop the ****s who some how gets hold of guns and act like twats (as is the case in the UK now).

kiki75

7th February 2009, 19:41

Apart from theirs always going to be one nutter who goes on a killing spree. Communism is not "heaven" and their will be a need for communities to defend themselves.
The more guns there are, the easier the killing spree.

Communism doesn't need to be heaven. I believe ppl defended themselves quite well prior to the invention of guns.

Pirate turtle the 11th

7th February 2009, 19:53

The more guns there are, the easier the killing spree.

Not really guns are piss easy to get hold off even if they are illegal and the people who shoot others dont really give a piss about legality.

Communism doesn't need to be heaven. I believe ppl defended themselves quite well prior to the invention of guns.

Yes but they did not have to defend themselves from guns did they.

Brother No. 1

7th February 2009, 19:56

they defended themselfs from what ever attacked them.

Tzonteyotl

7th February 2009, 20:13

But, which I would prefer depends on what's happening in the world. Is this question defined by the idea that Teh Revolution has been a success and we are now all living a socialistic existence?

I was also wondering about that, as well as about what exactly the specific functions were of these armed individuals, whether police or citizenry in general.

For one, I don't think having an armed, trained police force means the populace is going to be arms free, so the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Secondly, doing away with firearms does not do away with weaponry. A steak knife or even a pencil can become a weapon. Not to mention that you still have your hands and feet which can become lethal. However, if firearms were eliminated, this does not mean that a trained group of citizens who responds specifically to these type of cases has to be unarmed. They could still be equipped with nonlethal weapons. But better ones than now ("Don't tase me bro!").

Third, in a socialist society where we're basically just worried about the occasional nutter, having a group to respond that's specifically trained to deal with that sort of thing seems logical. Or it may not even have to be a "profession." It can be a basic training that all citizens receive and the response group can be rotational. These are just hypothetical, of course, and it would depend on what the citizens themselves decide based on their situations.

Pirate turtle the 11th

7th February 2009, 20:19

I was also wondering about that, as well as about what exactly the specific functions were of these armed individuals, whether police or citizenry in general.

Well to stop life from getting fucked up by a minority of ****s.

For one, I don't think having an armed, trained police force means the populace is going to be arms free, so the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Your right. Although I dont think "police" is a healthy career option to have in communist octile. Which is why fast response will have to be the job of armed a trained workers on a rotary basis.

Secondly, doing away with firearms does not do away with weaponry. A steak knife or even a pencil can become a weapon. Not to mention that you still have your hands and feet which can become lethal. However, if firearms were eliminated, this does not mean that a trained group of citizens who responds specifically to these type of cases has to be unarmed. They could still be equipped with nonlethal weapons. But better ones than now ("Don't tase me bro!").

Your right! Next time im worried of some useless piece of shit shooting me il stab them with a pencil! :lol:

Third, in a socialist society where we're basically just worried about the occasional nutter, having a group to respond that's specifically trained to deal with that sort of thing seems logical. Or it may not even have to be a "profession." It can be a basic training that all citizens receive and the response group can be rotational. These are just hypothetical, of course, and it would depend on what the citizens themselves decide based on their situations.[/quote]

Tzonteyotl

7th February 2009, 20:21

Not really guns are piss easy to get hold off even if they are illegal and the people who shoot others dont really give a piss about legality.

Yes but they did not have to defend themselves from guns did they.

I don't think the idea was to just make guns illegal, but to destroy the guns (as many as could be collected) that already exist and cease all production of firearms and ammunition. In this way, whatever guns escaped destruction would still become effectively useless as ammunition would no longer be available (short of people hiding their own ammo factories in their homes). This again, is hypothetical. But for the sake of argument, given the victory of the socialist revolution and an end to war, it would be logical to eliminate the instruments of warfare.

Pirate turtle the 11th

7th February 2009, 20:24

I don't think the idea was to just make guns illegal, but to destroy the guns (as many as could be collected) that already exist and cease all production of firearms and ammunition. In this way, whatever guns escaped destruction would still become effectively useless as ammunition would no longer be available (short of people hiding their own ammo factories in their homes). This again, is hypothetical. But for the sake of argument, given the victory of the socialist revolution and an end to war, it would be logical to eliminate the instruments of warfare.

No - fucking - way im sorry but i felt like crying when reading this.

People are going to make guns even if you tell them its naughty. People are capable of making guns undetected quite well.

Brother No. 1

7th February 2009, 20:25

We Humans are really naughty at times. There is even a company called Naughty Dog.

Tzonteyotl

7th February 2009, 20:30

Well to stop life from getting fucked up by a minority of ****s.

That's the obvious. I was speaking about specifics. As in, if there's a police, do they drive around on patrols? Do they only respond to calls related to murders or violent crimes, etc? If there's no police and just an armed populace, how do they respond to these type of incidents? How are they organized and so on.

Your right! Next time im worried of some useless piece of shit shooting me il stab them with a pencil! :lol:
I'm sorry, but how did you get this from my comments? I wasn't saying respond to a gun threat with a pencil. I was saying even if guns were eliminated (i.e. destroyed and nonexistent) people would still have weapons.

Tzonteyotl

7th February 2009, 20:36

No - fucking - way im sorry but i felt like crying when reading this.

People are going to make guns even if you tell them its naughty. People are capable of making guns undetected quite well.

Again, it was a hypothetical. And while it would be logical, it's not realistic. My whole point being (from my other posts) that even if this were to actually happen, people would still be able to turn ordinary objects into weapons. Thus, whatever happens-whether there's a "police" or the citizens rotate this responsibility-there need to be arms of some kind for self defense.

Pirate turtle the 11th

7th February 2009, 20:37

That's the obvious. I was speaking about specifics. As in, if there's a police, do they drive around on patrols? Do they only respond to calls related to murders or violent crimes, etc? If there's no police and just an armed populace, how do they respond to these type of incidents? How are they organized and so on.

That would be up to the commune. I can imagine the sector or the workers militia temporally assigned to do policing would drive round in patrols and would respond to things such as murder , violent crimes , somone breaking into somone elses house etc. Although with regular training for the workers i can imagine thier would be a much more hands on attitude.

I'm sorry, but how did you get this from my comments? I wasn't saying respond to a gun threat with a pencil. I was saying even if guns were eliminated (i.e. destroyed and nonexistent) people would still have weapons.

Thats true. But none of those Weopens would be able to do shit against a gun.

Brother No. 1

7th February 2009, 20:38

They would just use fists,rocks, legs, anything they can use. We humans think if I can use this i will just use that.

Pirate turtle the 11th

7th February 2009, 20:38

Again, it was a hypothetical. And while it would be logical, it's not realistic. My whole point being (from my other posts) that even if this were to actually happen, people would still be able to turn ordinary objects into weapons. Thus, whatever happens-whether there's a "police" or the citizens rotate this responsibility-there need to be arms of some kind for self defense.

This is true but its best to have defense which works. (I dont see your point i mean it has no relationship to your guns = bad argument at all)

Tzonteyotl

7th February 2009, 20:43

Thats true. But none of those Weopens would be able to do shit against a gun.

Am I not stating myself clearly enough? I'm not talking about competing with a gun. It's obvious a pencil won't beat a gun (unless it jams or runs out of ammo:lol:). That's not the situation I'm talking about. In fact, my original comment from which you've deduced this wasn't even in response to your posts but to the poster who said we don't need weapons and how unrealistic that idea is.

Pirate turtle the 11th

7th February 2009, 20:46

Am I not stating myself clearly enough? I'm not talking about competing with a gun. It's obvious a pencil won't beat a gun (unless it jams or runs out of ammo:lol:). That's not the situation I'm talking about. In fact, my original comment from which you've deduced this wasn't even in response to your posts but to the poster who said we don't need weapons and how unrealistic that idea is.

So your pro armed populace?

Im such a willy :(

Tzonteyotl

7th February 2009, 21:06

So your pro armed populace?

Im such a willy :(

I'm for a rotational response team (if you want to call it a "police," fine) that no matter what happens is properly equipped to deal with a potential threat. If that threat is a gun, well then the response team should have guns as well. Nonlethal weapons are far more preferable, but if firearms are necessary, then so be it.

As far as the rest of the populace is concerned, well on the one hand, since the "police" isn't a dedicated profession, but a rotational group made of the citizens themselves, I wonder whether the populace at large really needs arms en masse. I mean, how great a threat are we expecting here? This sounds like fear mongering, like socialist society will be incredibly unsafe and that everyone needs a gun. On the other hand, you might not want this "police," however rotational it is, to go unchecked and have a monopoly on weaponry (not to mention the "naughty" ones who get their hands on weapons). In the end, I guess it's just a choice best left to the individual. If he/she feels like a having a weapon, then he/she is free to have one (limits perhaps on the number of weapons one can have?).

Pirate turtle the 11th

7th February 2009, 21:23

DÃ³chas

7th February 2009, 22:39

i am going to go with an armed populace, it works in cuba although he population is not armed all the time

AnthArmo

7th February 2009, 23:36

i am going to go with an armed populace, it works in cuba although he population is not armed all the time

Cuba has an armed populace? this is the first I've heard of this. If true than it could be an awesome argument to refute those annoying "Cuba is authoritarian" rightist pundits.

iraqnevercalledmenigger

8th February 2009, 01:32

The problem with the question is that it does not specify the historical stage of development where one would prefer an armed populace or an organized police force. The material basis for a centralized police for would wear away with the overthrow of capitalist rule and the establishment of workers rule and socialism.

The historical development of the modern day police force as we know it came about in England (London me thinks) when the various groups of thugs hired by the local capitalists to break strikes and harass workers were merged into a centralized unit. Using the military was a bit too naked a show of force, and giving the police socially necessary tasks like directing traffic and shit gives the facade of them as actually "protecting and serving".

Comrade B

8th February 2009, 01:48

kiki75

8th February 2009, 02:28

So, the government has guns, but the people don't? And, the people don't need guns b/c the gov't. is being controlled properly?

If the people don't need guns, why does the government?

SocialRealist

8th February 2009, 02:43

I would support having both an armed populace and a organized police force. It would be a counter balance of some sort. The populace would serve the needs of protecting the states foundation models and protecting personal freedom of the people, whilst the police would protect the people from each other.

Both quite honestly are a good idea and would both be needed in their own ways. The problem with just having one or the other would be that the power would not flow in a good manner. If you have just an armed populace, this could be break out fights within the community of people. On the other hand if you have just an armed police force the power would be concentrated by the police force making a generally police state type of situation viable and ready.

Brother No. 1

8th February 2009, 13:45

The Goverment wont trust the Populance with Guns for they think they could Start Revolution. A Revlot againist their rule.

Comrade B

9th February 2009, 01:07

If the people don't need guns, why does the government?
Not everybody in the world is sane, safe, normal. Sure, theft and a lot of murders are due to the influence of capitalism, but there are still rapists and plenty of other nut jobs with something that just makes them dangerous. My brother met a guy a while back who is now in prison because it turns out, he liked to stab random people. No reason, just liked to stab them.
Also, how would these situations be handled in a situation where all law is in the hands of the population
1. Armed psychopath
2. Personal conflict related fighting
3. White collar criminals
4. Organized crime

Invincible Summer

9th February 2009, 02:21

I'm for a rotational response team (if you want to call it a "police," fine) that no matter what happens is properly equipped to deal with a potential threat. If that threat is a gun, well then the response team should have guns as well. Nonlethal weapons are far more preferable, but if firearms are necessary, then so be it.

As far as the rest of the populace is concerned, well on the one hand, since the "police" isn't a dedicated profession, but a rotational group made of the citizens themselves, I wonder whether the populace at large really needs arms en masse. I mean, how great a threat are we expecting here? This sounds like fear mongering, like socialist society will be incredibly unsafe and that everyone needs a gun. On the other hand, you might not want this "police," however rotational it is, to go unchecked and have a monopoly on weaponry (not to mention the "naughty" ones who get their hands on weapons). In the end, I guess it's just a choice best left to the individual. If he/she feels like a having a weapon, then he/she is free to have one (limits perhaps on the number of weapons one can have?).

I generally agree with the idea of a "rotational" response team, although I think the team(s) should rotate throughout a majority (if not all) members of the commune; this way, everyone will have equal training, equal access to weaponry, and be able to fight if a hostile force tries to attack.

Not everybody in the world is sane, safe, normal. Sure, theft and a lot of murders are due to the influence of capitalism, but there are still rapists and plenty of other nut jobs with something that just makes them dangerous. My brother met a guy a while back who is now in prison because it turns out, he liked to stab random people. No reason, just liked to stab them.

Very true, and that guy your brother met is scary. Did he know him personally?

Also, how would these situations be handled in a situation where all law is in the hands of the population
1. Armed psychopath
2. Personal conflict related fighting
3. White collar criminals
4. Organized crime

1) Assuming the commune has a "rotational response team" or something similar, it would be similar to if the police existed: they'd try to subdue him/her and put him/her into psychiatric treatment. If the psychopath gets shot due to endangering citizens, then that's an unfortunate consequence.

2) Depends on the level of violence, cause of the fighting. Is it a domestic dispute? Jealousy between friends? I think the issue should be resolved in a sort of "conferencing" or "community court" system. There would be an elected mediator, elected jury and all people involved in the dispute. Basically, they'd "talk it out" until a compromise is made and everything is more or less understood. No one is really "charged" with anything, but the members of the dispute must hold personal accountability for all actions.

3) and 4) are purely capitalist phenomena, IMO.

grok

9th February 2009, 03:07

The more guns there are, the easier the killing spree.

Communism doesn't need to be heaven. I believe ppl defended themselves quite well prior to the invention of guns.

This is awful, awful petit-bourgeois thinking, Kiki. It demonstrates that you haven't thought this thing through at all, let alone much or a lot. Knee-jerk pacifism is the answer to absolutely nothing. Firstly: we have to deal with an enemy which is armed to the teeth and which intends to kill us all. Then, having defeated them (knock on wood), we have to keep an eye on the defeated survivors -- let alone on all the murderous and thieving 'walking wounded' of this bastard society which has spawned us all. The only way to get from this Hell-on-Earth to socialism -- let alone to communism -- is to arm the people in the meantime. But the people have to be organized, and has been already said, trained in their armed-ness.

This aspect of socialist organization you don't seem to grasp in the least.
Try thinking about it all, OK? You've got a LONG way to go intellectually here.

mykittyhasaboner

9th February 2009, 03:23

Other.

'Armed populace' doesn't really specify a type of defense organization, its just implying that everyone is strapped. If a revolutionary government finds itself in the midst of the war with counter-revolutionaries: Communities should be supplied with enough weapons and should organize and train militias for self-defense from internal attacks. For defense from external invasion/attack, its probably necessary to have some type of regular army; one that is heavily armed and properly trained.

grok

9th February 2009, 03:33

That would be up to the commune. I can imagine the sector or the workers militia temporally assigned to do policing would drive round in patrols and would respond to things such as murder , violent crimes , somone breaking into somone elses house etc. Although with regular training for the workers i can imagine thier would be a much more hands on attitude.

When basic, "frontline" public security is in the hands of the neighborhood committees -- AND when society is organized on the basis of at least nominal egalitarianism -- you can expect that at least 80%-90% of crime will be either de facto and summarily done away with immediately (or relatively quickly anyway); or at least dealt-with far more humanely than it is today -- thus accomplishing its job of short-circuiting the vicious circles of deprivation and oppression which actually drive this pernicious capitalist pathology.

It is absolutely wrong to consider that crime is somehow some 'natural force' "out there" -- i.e. which can therefore not be dealt-with EASILY; and which is, instead, a part of some "human nature" which we can never approach -- or at least must deal-with with great difficulty and sacrifice... Fact is, marxism well-explains how oppression of man by man is inherently a product of the alienation and exploitation of class society. You remove the exploitation and the oppression -- and you remove the animus which pits people against each other. Who's going to to be robbing whom, for instance, when eveyone is guaranteed a fair living and all manner of opportunities for personal growth..? That really just leaves matters like "crimes of passion", etc. -- which AFAIC will themselves be more easily dealt-with over time; but better than today anyway, starting right from beginning of the socialist order as well.

Thats true. But none of those Weopens would be able to do shit against a gun.Of course there will be guns. This is not an option or really debatable. The point here actually is: how many guns will be needed, and for how long? And the answer to those questions is: far fewer than today -- and not so far into the future as many might think. It's really not so hard to grasp -- just that so many have not actually thought this stuff thru. I blame our bad, rotten, awful Left leadership over the past number of decades for this.

grok

9th February 2009, 03:36

'Armed populace' doesn't really specify a type of defense organization, its just implying that everyone is strapped. If a revolutionary government finds itself in the midst of the war with counter-revolutionaries: Communities should be supplied with enough weapons and should organize and train militias for self-defense from internal attacks. For defense from external invasion/attack, its probably necessary to have some type of regular army; one that is heavily armed and properly trained.

That's like, next week, I believe.

Invincible Summer

9th February 2009, 03:48

It's really not so hard to grasp -- just that so many have not actually thought this stuff thru. I blame our bad, rotten, awful Left leadership over the past number of decades for this.

1) Stop patting yourself on the back for being "ahead of us" in revolutionary thinking.

2) What "left leadership?"

3) You can reply to multiple posts in a single post - you tend to hit "reply" to each one. Or are you just trying to boost your post count?

grok

9th February 2009, 04:08

I stand by my other 2 thread stances for a police and highly restricted weapons. So long as the government is stable and controlled by the people, there is no need to fear it and try to keep power out of its hands. A necessity for an armed civilian population just confirms that a government is failing to do its job.

No, you don't understand the process of social and material development from capitalist thru socialist into communist society. (That seems to be a congenital anarchist conceptual problem too, AFAIC.) Fact is, our society simply can't jump from today's anarchic capitalist world order into some nice and stable situation where everyone is more-or-less reasonable -- just as you simply don't dispense with the 'The Market' or with money or wages, the day after The Revolution... Fact is, it takes time to work these things thru and out. One plodding step at a time, one after the other.

AFAIC we'll be damned lucky if we can wring these issues out over the course of only 1 or 2 generations... Personally, I think we can. Easily. It's the "WWIII/wastelands-glowing-in-the-dark" angle which I can't quite get my head around yet... Because the capitalists clearly intend to go for broke.
:crying:

grok

9th February 2009, 04:22

1) Stop patting yourself on the back for being "ahead of us" in revolutionary thinking.

2) What "left leadership?"

3) You can reply to multiple posts in a single post - you tend to hit "reply" to each one. Or are you just trying to boost your post count?

AFAIC people who turn to ad hominem attax do so because they really don't have much of a point to begin with. I think I responded bluntly to some pretty awful thinking there. You don't think so? I think it's important not to beat around the bush, endlessly, you know -- considering we're on the edge of the Precipice, especially. Part of the problem with Left politix, IMO, is the lack of professionalism -- i.e. in this case, the inability to take (cogent) criticism well. I don't mind dishing it out -- but I can also take it, understand? And so could a Lenin or a Trotsky, for instance. In fact that's a big part of what made them who they were: they were professionals. They didn't take criticism nearly so personally.

You -- you're just being critical to no useful end that I can see here.
:p

And what Left leadership, indeed.

Comrade B

9th February 2009, 06:39

Very true, and that guy your brother met is scary. Did he know him personally?
My brother got in a car with him when he was 19 because the guy said he could buy him beer, few months later he hears the guy was arrested, his nickname was something like "Stabbing Jim" or something along those lines of creepy

3) and 4) are purely capitalist phenomena, IMO.
Looking back, I may agree with you on at least white collar crime being something that would be eradicated with capitalism, it is something that comes out of the values people are raised with.

Pogue

9th February 2009, 20:32

Its naive to assume that post-revolution crime will disappear or we wont need some sort of dedicated force for dealing with it. Revolutions can change people and societies but that doesnt mean we all become perfect.

Pirate turtle the 11th

9th February 2009, 20:43

When basic, "frontline" public security is in the hands of the neighborhood committees -- AND when society is organized on the basis of at least nominal egalitarianism -- you can expect that at least 80%-90% of crime will be either de facto and summarily done away with immediately (or relatively quickly anyway); or at least dealt-with far more humanely than it is today -- thus accomplishing its job of short-circuiting the vicious circles of deprivation and oppression which actually drive this pernicious capitalist pathology.

It is absolutely wrong to consider that crime is somehow some 'natural force' "out there" -- i.e. which can therefore not be dealt-with EASILY; and which is, instead, a part of some "human nature" which we can never approach -- or at least must deal-with with great difficulty and sacrifice... Fact is, marxism well-explains how oppression of man by man is inherently a product of the alienation and exploitation of class society. You remove the exploitation and the oppression -- and you remove the animus which pits people against each other. Who's going to to be robbing whom, for instance, when eveyone is guaranteed a fair living and all manner of opportunities for personal growth..? That really just leaves matters like "crimes of passion", etc. -- which AFAIC will themselves be more easily dealt-with over time; but better than today anyway, starting right from beginning of the socialist order as well.

Crime is still going to happen theres still going to be people who smash up bus stops for shits n giggles and odd people who stab others for no reason. Probably alot less but there will be some.

Of course there will be guns. This is not an option or really debatable. The point here actually is: how many guns will be needed, and for how long? And the answer to those questions is: far fewer than today -- and not so far into the future as many might think. It's really not so hard to grasp -- just that so many have not actually thought this stuff thru. I blame our bad, rotten, awful Left leadership over the past number of decades for this.

The answer is : fuck off with your mystic shite. You dont know what the future holds we can speculate however and past historical events tell us we can expect to have at least one invasion by a foreign state and possibley some attempted coups you know.

Stuff people needs guns to stop.

Pirate turtle the 11th

9th February 2009, 21:03

The amount of hippy bullshit in this thread is staggering.

Il put it in pictures if it helps you lot understand.

http://www.4strugglemag.org/images/yay%20communism.jpg

Here is a picture of alot of happy people. We can presume they are either stretching their arms of having a revolution.

To get to this point we will need these people on our side
http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00431/SNN0615A_682_431058a.jpg
Which luckily can be done as has being shown throughout history. We dont want them on our side because there helmets look abit like bellends and bellends are funny. No its because they have guns and know how to use them. If they arnt on our side they will be against us.

And we would lose.

So anyway should we just say "alright you guys know what your doing have all the guns".

No of course not because that gives them the potential to usurp democratically made decisions. So how do we fix this.

Oh yes we give people guns.

http://www.lindsayfincher.com/gallery/d/12594-1/shooting_shotgun_lindsay_1.jpg
And get them trained.

So now in the very likely event somone like these people turn up

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/6369/z5su.jpg

We can wage an efficient insurgency

So anyway we have had our revolution driven out any invading states.

But whats this?

http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00061/pg-1-army-rex_61818t.jpg

Remember this guy? No but anyway say he and some slightly aresholish ex-officers and even ex-soilders decide it would be a good idea to try and overthrow the communes.

Luckily because the population is trained and armed he finds himself in a ditch riddled with bullets.

So anyway all is stable but we need somone to stop random murders etc so what can we do. A full time police force is likely to turn into a bunch of wankers so we do a rotational response team from the armed population.

Comrade B

10th February 2009, 03:26

Remember this guy? No but anyway say he and some slightly aresholish ex-officers and even ex-soilders decide it would be a good idea to try and overthrow the communes.
This can be stopped by regulating the weapons.

So now in the very likely event somone like these people turn up
If we have government organized militias, a military, and police, this will be much easier to stop.
By a well organized militia I mean planned districts with weapon depots in them which are only to be used in government authorized situations, not a bunch of guys with guns just in case, who we have no real information about

Glorious Union

10th February 2009, 03:59

Armed and trained populace with a rota for people to deal with emergency calls
Yes, exactly. I have a freind who was able to save somebodies life because he happened to have his gun with him at the scene of a robery. He had a lot of military training behind him too, and managed to mortally wound four of the assailants.

rararoadrunner

10th February 2009, 06:40

Comrades:

It might surprise you that the electoral party to which I belong, California's Peace and Freedom Party, strongly supports the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms: we see the liberal support of the monopoly over arms by the State as one of many liberal swindles of the working class.

That being said, however, most of us in the PFP realise that our electoral party is far from ready to organise revolutionary militias, guerillas, call them what you will: what is to be done?

A lot of this discussion cannot be undertaken here, of course, but, in general terms, as I noted on the thread on the evolution of gangsters into revolutionaries/devolution of revolutionaries into gangsters, the problem is part a question of objective conditions, part political astuteness by revolutionaries, as well as by their fascist enemies.

We can begin by noting that the devolution of capitalism into its more anarchic/chaotic forms creates the conditions for the militarisation of politics, if you will, in which workers need to be armed in order to survive: those who remain bukered individually or by family, those who organise revolutionary bands, and those who join reactionary/fascist paramilitaries fight it out.

Crucial to this phase of anarchy is the presence or absence of a general strike or other economic breakdown: "normal" capitalist economic relations must be superceded by something, and, if we socialists aren't all we must be, what will triumph will be fascism.

If fascism triumphs, one of its hallmarks will be ruthless war against its political opponents: if we haven't studied how fascism has been overthrown historically, and apply this study to our situation, we will have failed utterly, and will not survive the fascist era.

That is about all I can say for the moment in an open forum: back to you, comrades!

Invincible Summer

10th February 2009, 06:47

Revulero

10th February 2009, 07:15

Damn, this is hard. You could arm the populace and have them take rotational shifts, but during these shifts couldn't they abuse their power just like the police could?

rararoadrunner

10th February 2009, 07:48

This question...of socialist revolution vs. social chaos...is one of the most difficult, delicate subjects within the study of scientific socialism, which is precisely why Marx approached the question so carefully, and brought the full weight of his dialectical approach to it.

On the one hand, Marx shared, at a very deep level, the anarchists' profound mistrust of the State; on the other hand, he saw clearly, from many historical examples, just how destructive social chaos was. The problem, therefore, was how socialist revolution could be vouchsafed from the forces that sought to destroy it, both without and within.

Clearly, in my view, the rise of fascism in the Soviet Union proved that this was no mere academic exercise: neither social chaos nor tyranny could be called "socialism," if by that we mean democratic control of production by the producers: this definition presupposes that a functioning democracy is able to arrive at, carry out, and, if need be, enforce its decisions.

So: how do we avoid the twin shoals of social chaos and fascist tyranny?

We can agree with the anarchists that, if we reconstruct a State, we risk tyranny; however, we also can agree that, without some sort of armed force at our disposal, we are at the mercy of counterrevolutionaries without and within.

Therefore, the only option this leaves is the people, armed, but organised democratically: only workingclass solidarity, as we socialists must always and everywhere promote and defend, can prevent this from degenerating into yet worse social chaos, which leaves workers so thirsting for order that they are easy pickins' for fascist demagogues.

Anarchy, in the sense of a lack of politically-directed coercion, is one way to express what Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, and others sought as an end-point fo socialist development: communism is another.

To mistake the end-point of socialism for its starting-point of socialist overthrow of capitalism, however, was, in their view, to make that revolution utterly impossible, given the nature of what was to be overthrown: what was sought was a decreace rather than increase in social entropy, which would, in their view, unleash rather than constrain human development.

In short, the attitude of the classic Marxist authors toward anarchy was profoundly dialectical, rather than a simple yea or nea.

Back to you, comrades!

Pirate turtle the 11th

10th February 2009, 17:07

This can be stopped by regulating the weapons.

No it cant. If kids round my way can get hold of guns im pretty sure the kind of person who starts a coup will have no problems.

If we have government organized militias, a military, and police, this will be much easier to stop.

Well police in general suck at long term wars its not what they are trained for.

And any war would need to be an insurgency not a army one meets army two for an epic sized battle.

Apart from it wont. Because then the coup will have o

By a well organized militia I mean planned districts with weapon depots in them which are only to be used in government authorized situations,

I know your stupid but please work out that governments have the potential to act against there people even ones that use red flags.

not a bunch of guys with guns just in case, who we have no real information about

Who the fuck are "we"

Pirate turtle the 11th

10th February 2009, 17:10

Damn, this is hard. You could arm the populace and have them take rotational shifts, but during these shifts couldn't they abuse their power just like the police could?

No because they would be shot by the armed population.

Pirate turtle the 11th

10th February 2009, 17:16

Eastside Revolt

10th February 2009, 17:55

Remember this guy? No but anyway say he and some slightly aresholish ex-officers and even ex-soilders decide it would be a good idea to try and overthrow the communes.

Luckily because the population is trained and armed he finds himself in a ditch riddled with bullets.

So anyway all is stable but we need somone to stop random murders etc so what can we do. A full time police force is likely to turn into a bunch of wankers so we do a rotational response team from the armed population.

I say no carreer soliers at all.

I understand perfectly well that people who have the skill and will and circumstance will do most of the fighting.

But No careers at all.

I do like the slide show though.:laugh:

Pirate turtle the 11th

10th February 2009, 18:14

I say no carreer soliers at all.

Agreed. Apart from in times of war.

Comrade B

11th February 2009, 00:44

No it cant. If kids round my way can get hold of guns im pretty sure the kind of person who starts a coup will have no problems.
That is because there are very weak regulations on weapons where you are. I am talking about the government having record of each gun out there.

Well police in general suck at long term wars its not what they are trained for.

And any war would need to be an insurgency not a army one meets army two for an epic sized battle.
An insurgency will never reclaim its country, it can only remove those already occupying it. Who takes over will be another argument. One should avoid this loss of power as carefully as possible.

I know your stupid
Fuck you. Be polite. We are here to discuss, not bash each other ass hole. No one is changing a view when you are insulting them.

please work out that governments have the potential to act against there people even ones that use red flags.
And the majority also can do some pretty stupid shit (note lynchings in southern US)

Who the fuck are "we"
The communist leadership and the public. People with guns should be known by those around them.

Invincible Summer

11th February 2009, 01:20

That is because there are very weak regulations on weapons where you are. I am talking about the government having record of each gun out there.

There's gun registration in Canada, but gangsters go around shooting each other up with illegal, unregistered guns all the time.

Unregistered guns are going to be an issue, unless you propose some crazy convoluted system to be able to track every gun ever made to its owner... and then how do you deal with inherited guns?

The communist leadership and the public. People with guns should be known by those around them.

The people should be the leadership, not some bearded ass hat who stands at a podium

Dharma

11th February 2009, 01:31

Armed and trained populace with a rota for people to deal with emergency calls

Exactly. The less authority the better.

Comrade B

11th February 2009, 02:57

There's gun registration in Canada, but gangsters go around shooting each other up with illegal, unregistered guns all the time.
The guns are bought legally first though, then sold illegally, they don't just appear out of no where. If they were being more closely watched by the government, then there would be less of a problem.

track every gun ever made to its owner
This should be done, but also with this the guns must be given out sparingly, thus making this seem less extreme and extensive.

inherited guns
Inheritance is bizarre, only sentimental objects should be passed on (photos, paintings, things made personally and such), otherwise people will be rich due to the work of others and create a leisure class which lazes about while others do all their work.

Revulero

11th February 2009, 03:05

No because they would be shot by the armed population.

Yeah, but couldn't the majority of people turn and create some type of mafia.

Invincible Summer

11th February 2009, 06:33

The guns are bought legally first though, then sold illegally, they don't just appear out of no where. If they were being more closely watched by the government, then there would be less of a problem.

But it just seems like a lot of bureaucracy to have to create a "gun watching task force" in your proposed government that keeps track of every single freaking gun.

This should be done, but also with this the guns must be given out sparingly, thus making this seem less extreme and extensive.

To whom will the guns go to? With even fewer guns, that makes any gun owner automatically much more powerful than the non-gun owners -that's favoring certain members of the population over others. If guns are reduced to say, 80 per 1000 people, then those 80 people (assuming each person is only allowed one gun, which brings into account families who try to hoard guns) are going to have an oligopoly of force over the rest of the population, since there are no more guns for them to purchase.

Inheritance is bizarre, only sentimental objects should be passed on (photos, paintings, things made personally and such), otherwise people will be rich due to the work of others and create a leisure class which lazes about while others do all their work.
Guns can be sentimental objects, and don't directly make anyone rich. But I do agree with you on inheritance.

Comrade B

11th February 2009, 07:23

But it just seems like a lot of bureaucracy to have to create a "gun watching task force" in your proposed government that keeps track of every single freaking gun.
heh, I am a trot, I loves me my bureaucracy. It is a lot of work, but I think that the benefits from it could be great.

To whom will the guns go to? With even fewer guns, that makes any gun owner automatically much more powerful than the non-gun owners -that's favoring certain members of the population over others. If guns are reduced to say, 80 per 1000 people, then those 80 people (assuming each person is only allowed one gun, which brings into account families who try to hoard guns) are going to have an oligopoly of force over the rest of the population, since there are no more guns for them to purchase.
My idea would be that they would be supplied to those who are in need of protection (court case witnesses for example) for short term use, potential targets for attack (politicians), as well as certain police divisions and the military.
In my beautiful hypothetical world of unicorns (please do not laugh at my silly ideals and self created political beliefs), communities would also receive a local armory which would be unlocked in the case of an emergency, with enough weapons for each able person without objection to fighting.

Guns can be sentimental objects, and don't directly make anyone rich.
Antiques and the like would be better served in a museum, where the entire public can see them, though it seems a bit cold to take away something of great meaning to a family, I think that they should be treated similarly to expensive paintings held by wealthy families. Note may be given to the families of those who gave up the object, however I am a firm believer in the philosophy that aesthetics should be made up mostly of murals and prints. (making visually pleasing objects with little utility viewable by all people)

Invincible Summer

11th February 2009, 07:49

heh, I am a trot, I loves me my bureaucracy. It is a lot of work, but I think that the benefits from it could be great.

Well, I wish you good luck with that comrade.

My idea would be that they would be supplied to those who are in need of protection (court case witnesses for example) for short term use, potential targets for attack (politicians), as well as certain police divisions and the military.

Like a "gun library" where they're loaned state weapons for a week or so?

In my beautiful hypothetical world of unicorns (please do not laugh at my silly ideals and self created political beliefs), communities would also receive a local armory which would be unlocked in the case of an emergency, with enough weapons for each able person without objection to fighting.

The armory idea sounds good, although deciding who knows the password/carries the key is another issue of contention, IMO.

Antiques and the like would be better served in a museum, where the entire public can see them, though it seems a bit cold to take away something of great meaning to a family, I think that they should be treated similarly to expensive paintings held by wealthy families. Note may be given to the families of those who gave up the object, however I am a firm believer in the philosophy that aesthetics should be made up mostly of murals and prints. (making visually pleasing objects with little utility viewable by all people)

I generally agree with you, especially that last point.

Pirate turtle the 11th

11th February 2009, 17:08

Yeah, but couldn't the majority of people turn and create some type of mafia.

What the fuck are you on about?

Pirate turtle the 11th

11th February 2009, 17:10

Being an anarchist and all i object t the idea of state loaned guns.

Im odd like that.

Pirate turtle the 11th

13th February 2009, 14:41

That is because there are very weak regulations on weapons where you are. I am talking about the government having record of each gun out there.

No guns are banned. If you get caught with one you get put in a little room and eat shit for five years. Even fucking knives will get you put away now.

Well police in general suck at long term wars its not what they are trained for.

[quote=Comrade B;1355724]
An insurgency will never reclaim its country, it can only remove those already occupying it. Who takes over will be another argument. One should avoid this loss of power as carefully as possible.

No because an insurgency will fight to create no go areas for occupying solders those areas would be democratically run . The task of the insurgency would be to make as many of these no go areas are possible this would be achieved by killing the appropriate people.

Fuck you. Be polite. We are here to discuss, not bash each other ass hole. No one is changing a view when you are insulting them.

No fuck you. I will not be nice and I will not be polite unless I like the other person. I dont know you real life or over the internet so your in the firing range for verbal use.

And the majority also can do some pretty stupid shit (note lynchings in southern US)

They can but not as stupid as the minority (note: The Iraq war)

The communist leadership and the public. People with guns should be known by those around them.

Fuck the communist leadership.

Ideally we want the place to be flooded with guns so if the circumstances demand it anyone can pick up a gun and shoot the enemy without going though bureaucratic shite.

Marxist

13th February 2009, 15:11

How about clasifying guns same as other tools? No license etc....

Comrade B

14th February 2009, 00:24

Ideally we want the place to be flooded with guns so if the circumstances demand it anyone can pick up a gun and shoot the enemy without going though bureaucratic shite.
Guns don't track the person you are trying to shoot... you know this right?
A bullet also doesn't usually stop in one person.
Someone pulls a gun in the subway to rob someone. Everybody else pulls theirs, shooting at the person. Bullets flying everywhere, killing multiple random people for someone trying to rob someone else.

Not only have we turned everything into a capital penalty, we have also caused those in crime situations to be more in danger than ever before.

No guns are banned. If you get caught with one you get put in a little room and eat shit for five years. Even fucking knives will get you put away now.
In that case, where do the guns come from do you think?
I am quite sure there are SOME guns legally sold in England, stores get robbed, people get guns.

No because an insurgency will fight to create no go areas for occupying solders those areas would be democratically run . The task of the insurgency would be to make as many of these no go areas are possible this would be achieved by killing the appropriate people.
How does a military not create a "no go area"?
Pretty sure no body is going to walk into a city with snipers on roof tops and well armed soldiers patrolling the streets without expecting just as much of a fight, if not more.

Invincible Summer

14th February 2009, 02:12

SocialismOrBarbarism

14th February 2009, 06:08

I never thought I'd see members of the revolutionary left that actually support gun control. Anyway, I think people are underestimating how easy it is to make a gun yourself. The quote "If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." isn't somehow less relevant after the establishment of socialism. People have always found ways to get guns.

I stand by my other 2 thread stances for a police and highly restricted weapons. So long as the government is stable and controlled by the people, there is no need to fear it and try to keep power out of its hands. A necessity for an armed civilian population just confirms that a government is failing to do its job.

Don't Trots uphold that the USSR was "controlled by the people" during it's early years?

CommieCat

14th February 2009, 06:21

Neither precludes the other. In my view, perhaps they would compliment each other.

Pirate turtle the 11th

14th February 2009, 11:49

Guns don't track the person you are trying to shoot... you know this right?
A bullet also doesn't usually stop in one person.
Someone pulls a gun in the subway to rob someone. Everybody else pulls theirs, shooting at the person. Bullets flying everywhere, killing multiple random people for someone trying to rob someone else.
You know I said trained dont you.
Not only have we turned everything into a capital penalty, we have also caused those in crime situations to be more in danger than ever before.

Well here you go presuming that the workers are as thick as shit and need your hand to guide them. I generally trust people not to run round shooting everyone who drops litter. And for things such as muggings house burlgries etc. I dont care if the offender gets killed. If i found somone in my house id probably damage him/her as much as i could without going to jail.
In that case, where do the guns come from do you think?
I am quite sure there are SOME guns legally sold in England, stores get robbed, peo ple get guns.

I know where guns come from you patronizing shit. Consider for a moment i know more about this then you do. Guns are smuggled in or made.
How does a military not create a "no go area"?
Pretty sure no body is going to walk into a city with snipers on roof tops and well armed soldiers patrolling the streets without expecting just as much of a fight, if not more.[/quote]

Pogue

14th February 2009, 16:06

Is it really realistic that people would want to be trained into an armed populace? Most people hate violence, and we're not all soldiers...

Pirate turtle the 11th

14th February 2009, 17:27

Is it really realistic that people would want to be trained into an armed populace? Most people hate violence, and we're not all soldiers... Not many people would want to be trained for the sake of it but after the revolution there would be a visible need for training to defend gains and after it a culture of training be implemented (not a macho one but just where its the dun thing to go and train every Saturday or whatever) The commune might vote "if you cant prove you can use a gun you wont get one". Or something along those lines. I think its sweeden where the national sport is shooting.

Pogue

14th February 2009, 17:57

Not many people would want to be trained for the sake of it but after the revolution there would be a visible need for training to defend gains and after it a culture of training be implemented (not a macho one but just where its the dun thing to go and train every Saturday or whatever) The commune might vote "if you cant prove you can use a gun you wont get one". Or something along those lines. I think its sweeden where the national sport is shooting.

What about people who quite simply, don't want to train to use a gun, Joe? I doubt people'd be up for the hassle of spending time learning to be in an army (peoples militia) when its just not them.

Brother No. 1

14th February 2009, 18:05

Well the Peoples will have to make that choice. It is their milita is it not.

Some Red Guy

14th February 2009, 18:18

Armed populace for me, along with 50 % of poll voters. Reason: An armed populace would be less exposed to corruption than the police.
Funny how those rednecks always complain that the "left" want to take away their guns. :laugh:

Brother No. 1

14th February 2009, 18:20

really I wont understand Rednecks.

Pirate turtle the 11th

14th February 2009, 18:21

What about people who quite simply, don't want to train to use a gun, Joe? I doubt people'd be up for the hassle of spending time learning to be in an army (peoples militia) when its just not them.

Well they would be beaten with sticks reapidly and forced to sing caramel's speedy cake remix in sweedish.

Or they just woudlnt go. Of course not everyone would go but I think there would be a lot more people up for it then there would be for todays equivalent (The TA)

Pogue

14th February 2009, 19:25

Well they would be beaten with sticks reapidly and forced to sing caramel's speedy cake remix in sweedish.

Or they just woudlnt go. Of course not everyone would go but I think there would be a lot more people up for it then there would be for todays equivalent (The TA)

These are ordinary people. I doubt you'd be able to motivate your average man on the street or father of 3 to pick up a gun and risk his life on a voluntary basis.

thinkerOFthoughts

14th February 2009, 19:42

I think protection should be just up to each citizen.. I think that for a police force or a Militia, the possibility of becoming corrupt is pretty big. have the community just look out for one another, with guns fists what ever, but dont put the power of protection in one exclusive force.

Brother No. 1

14th February 2009, 19:53

communites watching out for each other is a good idea. But that will take time for them to get used to it.

Pirate turtle the 11th

14th February 2009, 20:03

These are ordinary people. I doubt you'd be able to motivate your average man on the street or father of 3 to pick up a gun and risk his life on a voluntary basis.

Today id agree with you but after a revolution I believe peoples mindsets will change and they will become much more proactive.

Pogue

14th February 2009, 20:08

Today id agree with you but after a revolution I believe peoples mindsets will change and they will become much more proactive.

How will their mindset change, out of interest? How do you think that'll happen?

Brother No. 1

14th February 2009, 20:12

If there mindset was to change. It would be that they want peace and no more violence. But then again when have humans every stoped being Violent.

Comrade B

14th February 2009, 20:19

Brother No. 1

14th February 2009, 20:33

To much killing. We have already lost alot of humans over the past centuries. Really more then any other century.

Pirate turtle the 11th

14th February 2009, 20:37

How will their mindset change, out of interest? How do you think that'll happen?

Well as it is at the moment politically people dont really run there own lives. They make at tick on a box for the electable party they think will fuck them over the least. This as you know is about it. Everything else is up to the state.

Henceforth people dont have a very proactive attitude to their lives. However during communism people , normal people would have shot , stabbed , and beaten the shit out of their opressers , organized organs of power for their communities and workplaces and argued like a motherfucker over issues that cannot be solved on a personal level*

As you could imagine this means people do more political stuff themselves. Because the people of a commune would have agreed to form/ allow a workers militia** people would be much more willing to get involved with something they have argued for and seen the need for.

I suspect groups of mates would all join up and discuss it in the pub or whatever and there mates would tell other mates etc and those people would tell their kids that joining the Milita is a positive thing.

It would also be wise too have a culture which while not dripping with the idociy of "if your not behind our troops please step in front of them" but one of "learning to defend our community is a useful task and the people who spend there sataday afternoons training or whatever are pretty cool".

Communes may also decide to offer incentives to join for instance if a new load of nice houses is made out of all the people applying to live in one Milita members would be put at the front.

So basicly it comes down to this

Culture change (made much easier by the DIY expirence of revolution)
People being able to see the need

* Personal leaval means things that you would discuss between mates such as who goes out to get the beer etc
** If the commune dosent support a milita then there is no point in arguing what motovation would be needed - the commune would also be full of idiots.

Pirate turtle the 11th

14th February 2009, 20:48

Just thought I would share this story with you about not everybody being safe in the world.

Last night I was at a party and a guy made a joke about this other guy, his girlfriend attacked the guy, trying to grab his throat.
Pretty sure I am glad for my buddy's sake that this chick didn't have a gun.

I know in the past when iv had (primitive and legal) " weopens" in my pockets and attacked somone i was too angry to bother thinking about pulling out the object out of my pockets. Nor would it have given me the satisfaction of close up assault.

although il admit there probably would be times when somone would randomly get angry and kill somone but see my point at the end of the post.

Really, I think the logic in your argument is heavily flawed Joe.

You assume that everyone is capable of being a good shot
you say that people would have the choice of learning to use a weapon, wouldn't this leave many who do not want guns more at danger than the rest of the population?

Yes , yes it would. There would be others who had learnt to use guns around however although it would be advisable to learn how to use one and get a gun.

What age do you suggest training people to use guns? Pretty sure you don't want kids with guns, but still, kids can get their hands on the guns of their parents, there are plenty of stories of it.

Yes so what? How about parents put the guns away better stick em in the attic or a padlocked box.

You also get the idea that people that know how to shoot a target are just as capable of shooting a person. In the subway situation, you rely on everyone 1. Keeping calm and giving the guy an opportunity to give up, otherwise he is dead. 2. Firing correctly in at a person 3. The situation remaining controlled, who tells who pulled the first gun when everyone has one? 4. No one being behind the guy being shot

Looks like moving target practice would be needed. (Completely possible if my old sea scout group pulled this off then so can a Milita)

Also, do we really want the bodies of criminals all over the cities? Lots of blood.

Yes blood gives me a hard on. But seriously there wont be that many criminals as there are today and most crimes would not be resolved with a shooting.

But these are the options we have

1. Allow fire arms within the commune - risk the occasional accient
2. Have no guns - Get up to go to work in buger king the next morning
3. Give fire arms to an exclusive group (police or whatever) - Look out the window to see that group in power.
4. Bash your head against a brick wall til you die much easier then all this thinking nonsense

hugsandmarxism

14th February 2009, 20:49

If it is up to the people to defend themselves, their neighbors, and their families, I for one would think they'd do a good job of it. Armed populace seems to be the best way, though I can understand the desire to have a small number of career soldiers for certain situations.

Pogue

14th February 2009, 21:06

I know in the past when iv had (primitive and legal) " weopens" in my pockets and attacked somone i was too angry to bother thinking about pulling out the object out of my pockets. Nor would it have given me the satisfaction of close up assault.

although il admit there probably would be times when somone would randomly get angry and kill somone but see my point at the end of the post.

Yes , yes it would. There would be others who had learnt to use guns around however although it would be advisable to learn how to use one and get a gun.

Yes so what? How about parents put the guns away better stick em in the attic or a padlocked box.

Looks like moving target practice would be needed. (Completely possible if my old sea scout group pulled this off then so can a Milita)

Yes blood gives me a hard on. But seriously there wont be that many criminals as there are today and most crimes would not be resolved with a shooting.

But these are the options we have

1. Allow fire arms within the commune - risk the occasional accient
2. Have no guns - Get up to go to work in buger king the next morning
3. Give fire arms to an exclusive group (police or whatever) - Look out the window to see that group in power.
4. Bash your head against a brick wall til you die much easier then all this thinking nonsense

But unless everyone in the world had a gun, there'd be the risk of an armed coup. And it'd be stupid to suggest every single person in the world would be able to or happy to walk around with a gun. Thats jus tnot going to happen.

Brother No. 1

14th February 2009, 21:07

if everyone had a Gun then there would be a lot of coup Detas.

Pirate turtle the 11th

14th February 2009, 21:12

But unless everyone in the world had a gun, there'd be the risk of an armed coup. And it'd be stupid to suggest every single person in the world would be able to or happy to walk around with a gun. Thats jus tnot going to happen.

There would be the risk although since "people with guns" are not a distinct group who get there own mentalities from power over people unlike a police unit.

Its also worth mentioning that if a minority of people decided to overthrow a commune and managed to have a good chance of succeeding , neighboring communes would just dive in to stop it becoming a trend.

Pirate turtle the 11th

14th February 2009, 21:12

if everyone had a Gun then there would be a lot of coup Detas.

No there would not.

Brother No. 1

14th February 2009, 21:15

True. But with a gun anything is possible.

hugsandmarxism

14th February 2009, 21:17

True. But with a gun anything is possible.

Like time travel? :laugh:

Brother No. 1

14th February 2009, 21:18

If you were to get a sicentist and force him to build for you. so thats a maybe.

Pogue

14th February 2009, 21:24

There would be the risk although since "people with guns" are not a distinct group who get there own mentalities from power over people unlike a police unit.

Its also worth mentioning that if a minority of people decided to overthrow a commune and managed to have a good chance of succeeding , neighboring communes would just dive in to stop it becoming a trend.

Communes? These are not conclusive societies, they're forms of organisaiton. We're not going to be squatting in the 'Commune of Whatever'. If there was an armed uprising it'd be people opposed to us or whatever, or just a power mad group, resisting our society as a whole, it wouldn't be 'commune' based. The simple fact is, if everyone has guns, a group of people with guns would group together and attack other people.

Brother No. 1

14th February 2009, 21:25

Groups attacking groups. For whatever reason they want.

Pogue

14th February 2009, 22:26

Well as it is at the moment politically people dont really run there own lives. They make at tick on a box for the electable party they think will fuck them over the least. This as you know is about it. Everything else is up to the state.

Henceforth people dont have a very proactive attitude to their lives. However during communism people , normal people would have shot , stabbed , and beaten the shit out of their opressers , organized organs of power for their communities and workplaces and argued like a motherfucker over issues that cannot be solved on a personal level*

As you could imagine this means people do more political stuff themselves. Because the people of a commune would have agreed to form/ allow a workers militia** people would be much more willing to get involved with something they have argued for and seen the need for.

I suspect groups of mates would all join up and discuss it in the pub or whatever and there mates would tell other mates etc and those people would tell their kids that joining the Milita is a positive thing.

It would also be wise too have a culture which while not dripping with the idociy of "if your not behind our troops please step in front of them" but one of "learning to defend our community is a useful task and the people who spend there sataday afternoons training or whatever are pretty cool".

Communes may also decide to offer incentives to join for instance if a new load of nice houses is made out of all the people applying to live in one Milita members would be put at the front.

So basicly it comes down to this

Culture change (made much easier by the DIY expirence of revolution)
People being able to see the need

* Personal leaval means things that you would discuss between mates such as who goes out to get the beer etc
** If the commune dosent support a milita then there is no point in arguing what motovation would be needed - the commune would also be full of idiots.

Its really naive to suggest the act of revolution will do away with these problems. Life is simply not as simple as that. Capitalism is not the sole cause of problems, and to be honest if you have such an idealistic view of revolutions and communism then you're going to be bitterly disappointed when it happens.

How can culture change just like that? I agree it can happen over a long period of time, but it wont just happen. You have to make it happen, and it takes a long time.

Think about what a revolution will genuinely be like. There'll be councils and organisations, etc taking control. Imagine it like in the TinTin book we both like. You're still dealing with ordinary people, ordrinary problems, you've just done away with the oppresion of the bourgeois state and capitalism. Theres still alot of things which need flattening out, and most people will still be opposed to any 'isms'. We can't make this thing seem like its simple and absolute.

Pirate turtle the 11th

14th February 2009, 23:32

Its really naive to suggest the act of revolution will do away with these problems. Life is simply not as simple as that. Capitalism is not the sole cause of problems, and to be honest if you have such an idealistic view of revolutions and communism then you're going to be bitterly disappointed when it happens.

First of all unlike some of the members here i do not claim the capitalism is the sole cause of problems and that communism will be a materialistic heaven but culture will change this is just an observation by looking at what peoples reactions would be due to the change of events.

Oh and dont get your hopes up about communism in our life times it might happen, chances are il have being cremated a while before it happens.

How can culture change just like that? I agree it can happen over a long period of time, but it wont just happen. You have to make it happen, and it takes a long time.

Culture will change because people will probably have the biggest change since puberty. There lives will be completely diffrent and henceforth there way of seeing things will be.

Think about what a revolution will genuinely be like. There'll be councils and organisations, etc taking control. Imagine it like in the TinTin book we both like. You're still dealing with ordinary people, ordrinary problems, you've just done away with the oppresion of the bourgeois state and capitalism. Theres still alot of things which need flattening out, and most people will still be opposed to any 'isms'. We can't make this thing seem like its simple and absolute.

Thanks for a very patronizing introduction to communism. Fuck knows what this has to do with guns control.

Pirate turtle the 11th

14th February 2009, 23:34

Communes? These are not conclusive societies, they're forms of organisaiton. We're not going to be squatting in the 'Commune of Whatever'. If there was an armed uprising it'd be people opposed to us or whatever, or just a power mad group, resisting our society as a whole, it wouldn't be 'commune' based. The simple fact is, if everyone has guns, a group of people with guns would group together and attack other people.

I meant people who made decisions over a commune and by overthrow the commune i mean make it obsolete as a democratic organ of power.

The think about a group of people with guns going mad and shooting people is that id rather that group had to go up against a larger group of (pissed off) people also with guns.

The larger group would win. Unlike if guns were controlled and the power mad group was the few with guns (which would be very likely) then the smaller group would win.

Pirate turtle the 11th

14th February 2009, 23:35

If you were to get a sicentist and force him to build for you. so thats a maybe.

This is not red alert two.

Pirate turtle the 11th

14th February 2009, 23:37

hugsandmarxism

14th February 2009, 23:42

Pick one motherfuckers

1. Allow fire arms within the commune - risk the occasional accient
2. Have no guns - Get up to go to work in buger king the next morning
3. Give fire arms to an exclusive group (police or whatever) - Look out the window to see that group in power.
4. Bash your head against a brick wall til you die much easier then all this thinking nonsense

I pick one. Pass out the warsaw-pact munitions!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Aks74u.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Aks74u.jpg)
The proletariat should be the ones to defend their revolution. This is the only way.

Brother No. 1

14th February 2009, 23:43

The Warsaw pact. I miss that also.

Pirate turtle the 11th

14th February 2009, 23:55

The Warsaw pact. I miss that also.

But you wernt alive when it existed.

Brother No. 1

15th February 2009, 00:06

I have read about it and studied it.

thinkerOFthoughts

15th February 2009, 00:11

Pick one motherfuckers

1. Allow fire arms within the commune - risk the occasional accient

I choose this one, only because it is impossible to "uninvent" the Gun no matter how hard we try, we cant erase it from this earth so thats what we are stuck with. Just let the community as a whole deal with this.

I have a question however. Are we talking about a socialist society/country? or are we talking when the whole world becomes a stateless, classless society?

Pirate turtle the 11th

15th February 2009, 00:14

I have a question however. Are we talking about a socialist society/country? or are we talking when the whole world becomes a stateless, classless society?

Communism because anarchists do it best.

Brother No. 1

15th February 2009, 00:28

so you are saying the Anarchists do better then all other Communists Groups. if you are can you prove your statement.

Comrade B

15th February 2009, 01:48

Communism because anarchists do it best.

Anarchism without structure is a ridiculous idea. You assume that people will learn ethics on their own, but previously in history, it has been proven that this does not always happen because at some point, classists came along and created class divided society, leading up to what we have in the modern world. We are really just hoping if we think that society can create equality without some authority.

That authority needs to be able to remove those who are not interested in equality.
Also, there must be someone continuing production. In an anarchist's world, who produces things?
Who builds cars, gives us fuel, manufactures medicine, or your guns?

An anarchist society can get this done
1. Feeding its people
2. No class (possibly)
3. Housing its people

It does not create anything though, it is stagnant.

I have a close relative with cancer, he must receive regular treatment or he would die. Who is going to treat him? How does he get there if it is another society dedicated to this? Where do the supplies for his treatment come from?

kiki75

15th February 2009, 01:57

You don't have to uninvent the gun. Just stop making them.

And, no Burger King, either.

Disappointingly limited thinking here.

kiki75

15th February 2009, 02:01

Also, there must be someone continuing production. In an anarchist's world, who produces things?
Who builds cars, gives us fuel, manufactures medicine, or your guns?

You think anarchists don't want to produce things? You don't think anarchists (groups of ppl) will come together to get things done? You don't believe in being self-motivated?

How do you think we got to where we are today? At some point, people who believed in autonomy got together and produced things.

Comrade B

15th February 2009, 02:17

At some point, people who believed in autonomy got together and produced things.
Out of necessity, after being eaten by other wild animals for a long time. Then people made sure that they would stay working together with sharp things.

You don't believe in being self-motivated?
I don't think it is possible for society to maintain itself on self motivation. People will surely look after their neighbors, friends, family, those in sight, but they will not gather to create things for the benefit of a larger population which they will never see.

Someone is not going to spend hours a day in a factory producing MRI machines for people they will never see.

kiki75

15th February 2009, 02:36

I, for one, am glad we have the ppl who can see into the future and ppl's hearts and motivations on our side.

Typical western thinking at it's finest.

Comrade B

15th February 2009, 02:39

Are you kidding me? Is being realistic now considered "western" thought? Because if we rely purely on baseless idealism, got to say, I think we are fucked.

People require an education to have them value helping others. My bet is many people would not be very interested in receiving this education unless it was required of them.

SocialismOrBarbarism

15th February 2009, 03:27

You don't have to uninvent the gun. Just stop making them.

And, no Burger King, either.

Disappointingly limited thinking here.

And then those that want guns will find/make them. Are we supposed to stop making everything that can be used to make guns and destroy all 550 million guns in the world?

Disappointingly limited thinking here.

thinkerOFthoughts

15th February 2009, 04:17

like i said you cant uninvent the gun, its here for good

WhitemageofDOOM

15th February 2009, 07:09

.
People require an education to have them value helping others.

:confused: Do the words "Social Animal" mean nothing to you?

Comrade B

15th February 2009, 09:23

http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/confused1.gif Do the words "Social Animal" mean nothing to you?
People are only social with those they can have direct contact with. There are a lot of people out there that don't give a damn about those they don't know.

Armand Iskra

15th February 2009, 10:28

Better to have an armed people's militia, and before given them guns,have them trained both in using arms as well as ideology, just like the black panthers or rather the red guards in china.

however, that militia also work either as farmer or worker, like the "bausoldat" concept, they would act both in productive and in protective manner-they are both protecting and producing commodities for the people and for the revolution.

in my idea,
having them trained ideologically may lessen the tendency of being "bandit or criminal-minded" since they are carrying arms in the commune. as well as having a sense of "revolutionary justice", especially against the accused; like a man guilty stealing a carabao, rape, murder will be sentenced to death.

Pirate turtle the 11th

15th February 2009, 10:57

Anarchism without structure is a ridiculous idea. You assume that people will learn ethics on their own, but previously in history, it has been proven that this does not always happen because at some point, classists came along and created class divided society, leading up to what we have in the modern world. We are really just hoping if we think that society can create equality without some authority.

No as shown in spain anarchists are perfectly capable of shooting people who fuck things over.

That authority needs to be able to remove those who are not interested in equality.
Also, there must be someone continuing production. In an anarchist's world, who produces things?
Who builds cars, gives us fuel, manufactures medicine, or your guns?

Workers

An anarchist society can get this done
1. Feeding its people
2. No class (possibly)
3. Housing its people

It does not create anything though, it is stagnant.

I have a close relative with cancer, he must receive regular treatment or he would die. Who is going to treat him? How does he get there if it is another society dedicated to this? Where do the supplies for his treatment come from?

Well he would go to appropriate medical staff (or they would go to him) and the supplies would come from i presume a store room in the hospital which have being manufactured by workers.

Please learn about things before you talk about them

Your argument has being one big strawman

http://www.marvel.com/universe3zx/images/9/96/StrawMan.jpg

Pirate turtle the 11th

15th February 2009, 10:59

Pirate turtle the 11th

15th February 2009, 11:01

You don't have to uninvent the gun. Just stop making them.

And, no Burger King, either.

Disappointingly limited thinking here.

Your right i also forgot to mention if you dont have guns you may be able to choose between burger king and subway in the morning.

Pirate turtle the 11th

15th February 2009, 11:02

People require an education to have them value helping others.

Mutual aid motherfucker.

Comrade B

15th February 2009, 19:51

No as shown in spain anarchists are perfectly capable of shooting people who fuck things over.
Congratulations, there are some violent people in your group, they still lost the war though, just to remind you that.

Workers
and where are they working? Why do they choose to work there?

Mutual aid motherfucker.
communes, in my bet, will probably grow against each other over time. Inside bias will cause them to think themselves before others. Ever been to a football game? Doesn't matter what they are playing for, people still root for the people representing them over others.

Please learn about things before you talk about them

Well he would go to appropriate medical staff (or they would go to him) and the supplies would come from i presume a store room in the hospital which have being manufactured by workers.

Are you kidding me? You never even addressed the question. What makes the people want to go help him? The treatment requires a large amount of equipment and training. The equipment cannot all be moved. Where do the workers receive their training? Why did those people choose to train them? What is their community based around if it is the same as a present university, people come in and move out regularly. How do they feed themselves if they are already constantly working on educating people? Who supplies the raw materials to the factories which make the equipment? Who builds it, and how is it made sure that people will always be working there? What happens if sickness breaks out in the chain of communities leading up to the production? Does it stop? How will it start up again.

What is the size of one of your communes? How do they function? What motivates the people? How do they know what others need?

What the hell is your society? To me, the most near logical thing I can get out of it is the exact same society we have now, just with no cops, which is just stupid, or a kind of primitivist idea of small tribes, which will be, as said before stagnant and cause no progress.

Also, what happens with research? Do we just give up on curing AIDs, cancer, genetic disease?

Pirate turtle the 11th

15th February 2009, 20:01

Congratulations, there are some violent people in your group, they still lost the war though, just to remind you that.

Yup. Your point being. They still did well considering what they were against. (Btw hippy non-violent wankers have fuck all to do with anarchism apart from as a hinderence and a dirtier of its name)

communes, in my bet, will probably grow against each other over time. Inside bias will cause them to think themselves before others. Ever been to a football game? Doesn't matter what they are playing for, people still root for the people representing them over others.

Thats because the two teams are competing you big nutsack!

Are you kidding me? You never even addressed the question. What makes the people want to go help him? The treatment requires a large amount of equipment and training. The equipment cannot all be moved. Where do the workers receive their training? Why did those people choose to train them? What is their community based around if it is the same as a present university, people come in and move out regularly. How do they feed themselves if they are already constantly working on educating people? Who supplies the raw materials to the factories which make the equipment? Who builds it, and how is it made sure that people will always be working there? What happens if sickness breaks out in the chain of communities leading up to the production? Does it stop? How will it start up again.

What is the size of one of your communes? How do they function? What motivates the people? How do they know what others need?

What the hell is your society? To me, the most near logical thing I can get out of it is the exact same society we have now, just with no cops, which is just stupid, or a kind of primitivist idea of small tribes, which will be, as said before stagnant and cause no progress.

Also, what happens with research? Do we just give up on curing AIDs, cancer, genetic disease?

Your such a retard.

Bitter Ashes

15th February 2009, 20:33

Okay. I'm not in favour of lynch mobs. The police might not be an ideal situation, but I trust them more than any mob. I guess I'm pretty suspicous of emotion. A level head, with full knowledge of criminal law and watchers to watch the watchers.
I know the police are not perfect, but I've yet to see a more satisfactory option yet, but I'll keep an open mind in case one comes along.

Pirate turtle the 11th

15th February 2009, 20:37

Bitter Ashes

15th February 2009, 20:47

Well, at the end of the day, the police are only there to make arrests, investigate and take statements. Ultimatly the fate of any offender is determined by a jury made up of our peers. I do think that anyone of sound mind can do that, so long as they're not personaly linked to the defendant or prosecution. Those measures are already in place here and I must say that I feel a lot safer knowing the police are on the street, rather than a militia.

Pirate turtle the 11th

15th February 2009, 20:52

Police = unaceptable they have crappy mindsets and are not appropriate

Militas however are trained and regular people.

Comrade B

15th February 2009, 21:06

Yup. Your point being. They still did well considering what they were against. (Btw hippy non-violent wankers have fuck all to do with anarchism apart from as a hinderence and a dirtier of its name)
My point is that your strategy didn't work.

Thats because the two teams are competing you big nutsack!
Why does one choose to support one over the other though?

Your such a retard.
And you can't answer a question about what your own fucking vision is.
You believe that the would should be nice. That is not an ideology, that is a hope.
You are an idiot. And you will never be anything more than an idiot because you choose not to think your ideology over.
You will lash out at another person before you consider their beliefs. Your first response to me was insulting, without reason. You will never get anyone to change their views because you are an ass hole, and people don't like ass holes. The people would never unite under the ideology of one so conceded.

Bitter Ashes

15th February 2009, 21:09

Police = unaceptable they have crappy mindsets and are not appropriate

Militas however are trained and regular people.
I'm not argueing that the police force probably attracts some unsavoury types. I'm sure there is a lot of people who join because they have a genuine intrest in protecting thier fellow human biengs too though. Maybe I'm nieve, but I would have thought the real thugs would be on the other side of the law where the money is better. Still not a perfect system, but I see it preferable to the alternative.
I just cant feel confident with the militia idea. It doesnt make me feel safe to know that there would be a gang walking around my neighbourhood with shotguns and thier own individual ideas of right and wrong. I suppose I should admit tha it's possible I may be biased due to my own personal history making me distrustful of armed civilians.
As I write this though, I suppose there is one thing I could accept and that's something like how the US has its Sherriff's department. Dont they elect thier Sherrif democractically and then the Sherriff is put in charge of hiring deputies? I think I could be happy with such a system :)

thinkerOFthoughts

15th February 2009, 21:24

Cant we just keep the normal, police force we already have? jobs will remain the same only people will be equal, and no overloards and such. Community security (aka. police) is a job.

Comrade B

15th February 2009, 21:37

Cant we just keep the normal, police force we already have? jobs will remain the same only people will be equal, and no overloards and such. Community security (aka. police) is a job.
Some change would be necessary, but the ideal is more or less the same, to maintain order. The police have been used in negative ways, but they can be applied positively, after having the deep rooted racism removed from it.

Pirate turtle the 11th

15th February 2009, 21:45

My point is that your strategy didn't work.

What a shitty unmarxist way of looking at things. Anarchists lost because the material conditions were against them (you know after fighting off the white armies they got stabbed in the back by the bolishiviks and you know after stalin decided he did not like the CNT while they were fighting franco who had the aid of hitler and mussalni.

Why does one choose to support one over the other though?

Dunno depends on the fan dunnit.

And you can't answer a question about what your own fucking vision is.
You believe that the would should be nice. That is not an ideology, that is a hope.
You are an idiot. And you will never be anything more than an idiot because you choose not to think your ideology over.
You will lash out at another person before you consider their beliefs. Your first response to me was insulting, without reason. You will never get anyone to change their views because you are an ass hole, and people don't like ass holes. The people would never unite under the ideology of one so conceded.

No i am just not preapered to talk with somone about the pros and cons of an anarchist soctiey when the other person is unable to learn something. Please go do your own reaserch check out how anarchist spain worked.

Anarchy does not equal every man for himself.

Btw i dont think il stop the revolution taking an anarchist term because im horrible to people i dont like. Unlike you i dont intent to be the grandaddy of revolution or "the new lenin"

Pirate turtle the 11th

15th February 2009, 21:48

BTW this is off topic now and i have no intrest in debating with you about anarchism.

its like the time i went onto this website started arguing and got "but china sucks lolz and iz still commie" and i then decided "fuck this" and stopped going on that website luckily revleft normally has good debates.

thinkerOFthoughts

15th February 2009, 21:53

You don't have to uninvent the gun. Just stop making them.

Disappointingly limited thinking here.

And what if some people want guns? you cant just stop making them. In a stateless, classless society, their is no way to regulate guns in the way you are suggesting (just stop making them)

Pirate turtle the 11th

15th February 2009, 21:57

Remember to pick one of my options folks

thinkerOFthoughts

15th February 2009, 22:00

Comrade B are you assuming that a Anarchist Community (world what ev.) can not ever work because everyone is to self absorbed, and only worry about themselves?

Comrade B

16th February 2009, 00:03

What a shitty unmarxist way of looking at things. Anarchists lost because the material conditions were against them (you know after fighting off the white armies they got stabbed in the back by the bolishiviks and you know after stalin decided he did not like the CNT while they were fighting franco who had the aid of hitler and mussalni.
It was still a loss. Yes, Stalin is greatly responsible for it, but the stratagy still failed. Conditions were against them, as they will always be, because anarchists will never side with an organized army, and the public will never be armed at the same level as an army is.

No i am just not preapered to talk with somone about the pros and cons of an anarchist soctiey when the other person is unable to learn something. Please go do your own reaserch check out how anarchist spain worked.
The early 1900s is not the modern world. The problems in Spain at the time are very different from modern problems. When people are dying of starvation, you choose to take care of them before you take care of people dying of cancer because starvation is a larger problem. Now most of the world is fed, sickness is a huge problem, and it must be a major point of emphasis.

Unlike you i dont intent to be the grandaddy of revolution or "the new lenin"
I don't think I can create a revolution, but I think I can convince 5 or so people in my life to join my beliefs. Their children will support those beliefs and maybe get another 5 people as well. Over time communism will recover.

Anarchy does not equal every man for himself.
It is small societies based on total democracy. My question is how will these small communities interact? How will they know what other communities need, how do we know that they will remain in a stable situation? There are deffinatly parts of the world where the majority of a community are racists, fascists, general scumbags, how do we make sure they don't recreate an imperialist society?

revleft normally has good debates.
and do you begin them all with insulting the person?

Remember to pick one of my options folks
your options are what you think is the world. For me to say that I choose one means I agree with your beliefs.

Comrade B are you assuming that a Anarchist Community (world what ev.) can not ever work because everyone is to self absorbed, and only worry about themselves?
No, I think there is a majority of socially responsible people who will try to take care of eachother, but it only takes a small part of the population to ruin the entire chain of labor.

SocialismOrBarbarism

16th February 2009, 02:56

As I write this though, I suppose there is one thing I could accept and that's something like how the US has its Sherriff's department. Dont they elect thier Sherrif democractically and then the Sherriff is put in charge of hiring deputies? I think I could be happy with such a system :)

This was always fine with me. A professional police force with elected officials and democratic oversight is compatible with socialism. If they screw up, they're recalled.

Invincible Summer

16th February 2009, 04:13

It was still a loss. Yes, Stalin is greatly responsible for it, but the stratagy still failed. Conditions were against them, as they will always be, because anarchists will never side with an organized army, and the public will never be armed at the same level as an army is.

How do you define "organized army?" If it's a national army, then why side with them? But a worker's militia can be just as organized, just with a different name.

The early 1900s is not the modern world. The problems in Spain at the time are very different from modern problems. When people are dying of starvation, you choose to take care of them before you take care of people dying of cancer because starvation is a larger problem. Now most of the world is fed, sickness is a huge problem, and it must be a major point of emphasis.

How is that relevant to what Comrade Joe said? I'd say the issue you are talking about is applicable to any revolutionary society, anarchist or Marxist-based.

It is small societies based on total democracy. My question is how will these small communities interact? How will they know what other communities need, how do we know that they will remain in a stable situation? There are deffinatly parts of the world where the majority of a community are racists, fascists, general scumbags, how do we make sure they don't recreate an imperialist society?

Do you think Communism should be run on a national scale, as in China and the USSR? Such high degrees of centralization have shown to include high levels of mismanagement, poorly allocated resources, etc.

The more decentralized the communities are, the more that these individual communities are able to decide what they need, as opposed to relying on some politico 3000 miles away to decide what the community needs.

And to answer how communities will interact? There's the internet and various other forms of modern communication.

A question to you: How do you make sure that a highly bureaucratic, centralized state does not recreate a totalitarian dictatorship?

No, I think there is a majority of socially responsible people who will try to take care of eachother, but it only takes a small part of the population to ruin the entire chain of labor.

Same can be said about communist leadership.

SocialismOrBarbarism

16th February 2009, 04:27

How do you define "organized army?" If it's a national army, then why side with them? But a worker's militia can be just as organized, just with a different name.

How is that relevant to what Comrade Joe said? I'd say the issue you are talking about is applicable to any revolutionary society, anarchist or Marxist-based.

Do you think Communism should be run on a national scale, as in China and the USSR? Such high degrees of centralization have shown to include high levels of mismanagement, poorly allocated resources, etc.

The more decentralized the communities are, the more that these individual communities are able to decide what they need, as opposed to relying on some politico 3000 miles away to decide what the community needs.

And to answer how communities will interact? There's the internet and various other forms of modern communication.

A question to you: How do you make sure that a highly bureaucratic, centralized state does not recreate a totalitarian dictatorship?

Same can be said about communist leadership.

Concerning centralization:

Anarchist-like decentralization would create situations that are, in my opinion, very similar to capitalism. I want socialized production. This should mean that the means of production are owned by society, not 90000 autonomous communes that can do whatever they want. If the communes have high levels of autonomy and can ultimately decide to go against society and restrict use of the communes means of production, then we might as well just be replacing single capitalists with large groupings of capitalists. Development among different areas is unbalanced, and this isn't the 1870s. The material conditions make a high level of decentralization implausible in relation to todays industrialized economy. The means of production are much more advanced and globalization has rendered any sort of self sufficiency impossible. If we have communes or groups of commune with means of production that are much more vital than those possessed by other communes, then this is opening up the possibility of exploitative relationships. For example, a commune in possession of a dam that provides power to 10 nearby communes would have a lot more 'bargaining power' than a commune with only a few small plots of land and a basket factory. So would a group of communes that possess an important natural resource, such as oil. With this kind of situation we would undoubtedly have competition between different communes and groups of communes and the possibility of armed conflicts, and utopian assertions such as "people will be peaceful and love each other after the revolution" do not change this. This would also creats market conditions as certain communes that are not able to innovate as much as other communes would also have a harder time making good trade agreements. Centralization gets rid of all of these problems. Engels' "On Authority" couldn't describe these problems any better in relation to todays conditions. I don't think he could have ever imagined just how relevant to future conditions that piece would end up.

karambit

16th February 2009, 05:28

It should be law that everyone has a firearm. 100% of the populace should be trained and ready. Police forces as they currently exist in the world are suspect to ulterior motives. There is nothing stopping them from turning against an unarmed populace. Would police in America -- for example -- be as cocky if they knew everyone was packing a .45? Absolutely not. Those cocky dick pigs would shake with fear. The man in Oakland Ca who was shot on the train...would the cop have done that if he knew every single passenger on that train was carrying a firearm? I'm betting no.

JacobVardy

16th February 2009, 05:29

The historical development of the modern day police force as we know it came about in England (London me thinks) when the various groups of thugs hired by the local capitalists to break strikes and harass workers were merged into a centralized unit. Using the military was a bit too naked a show of force, and giving the police socially necessary tasks like directing traffic and shit gives the facade of them as actually "protecting and serving".

From memory, and a quick check of wikipedia back this, the UK was the one of the last places in Europe to get a professional police force - the wealthy were scared of the threat to their liberty. Property crime control was done through the thief-takers and the market. Checkout Jonathon Wilde to see how bad this got. Modern police forces evolved from Napoleon's use of troops to control the cities. This is why police forces have a para-military stucture: they were originally armies of occupation.

AnthArmo

16th February 2009, 05:51

Bitter Ashes

16th February 2009, 11:20

I can't help but thing that your massively underestimating the goodwill of humanity. People aren't a bunch of potential loonies, ready to go on a killing/robbing spree at the slightest moment that there isn't any police resistance. Human's are by nature goodwilled, law abiding people. Most people want to live in a peaceful societyI agree in part. I'm a firm believer that most people only turn to crime because they want, or sometimes need, something that they cant get legitimatly.
Most of our worst crimes come from people who are addicted to illegal drugs I would say. These people are highly unemployable and the stuff they, feel they so desperatly, need is only available at very very high prices, due to there bieng a monoply held by criminal gangs who are only able to sell such substances by evading the law and using acts of violence to ensure they're the only gang selling in that area. Neither of which come cheap and with no other way of getting the money to pay for the drugs, addicts feel they have no other choice.
It doesnt just take drugs though. The reason we're all here is that we believe that capitalism is going wrong and I can gauruntee you that when you've not eaten for a few days and you've got baliff's knocking on your doors, thoughts of commiting a crime does creep into even the most stable of minds.
So, this stuff I could feel would be solved very quickly by a fall of capitalism.
What I would say though is that not all crimes are motivated by the need for money. Passionate feelings and even lust can drive people to crime too. Things like child abuse, animal abuse, rape, terrorism and assaults/murders by people who know the victim well are what springs to mind.
Obviously you cant outlaw emotion, so there is no prevention means available. All you can do is hope that with extra police freed up from thier other investigations, that they can act as a deterrant to rapists, or lynch mobs, or at worst, ensure sure that they do not reoffend.
And then there's always the individuals who might not even realise what they're doing due to mental issues. Depending on what is wrong with them, they could be capable of anything. It would be wrong to outlaw people with mental disabilities, or arbitarillay assume that they will commit a crime and incarcerate them. So the same thing applies, police would be there at the very least to ensure that person does not reoffend.

bcbm

16th February 2009, 11:34

Not really guns are piss easy to get hold off even if they are illegal and the people who shoot others dont really give a piss about legality.

You seem to ignore that violent crime doesn't occur in a vacuum, it has larger social causes. Certainly a communist society wouldn't be a paradise, but much of the reason for people shooting other people would be significantly lessened, if not dissapear.

Comrade B

16th February 2009, 21:21

A question to you: How do you make sure that a highly bureaucratic, centralized state does not recreate a totalitarian dictatorship?
A giant bureaucracy of elected officials of equal power. Make sure that no one person gains a larger part of power.

How do you define "organized army?" If it's a national army, then why side with them? But a worker's militia can be just as organized, just with a different name.
An army controlled by the leadership of a country will have a far larger military industry backing them, providing them with tanks and modernized weaponry, making them more powerful than a militia

Do you think Communism should be run on a national scale, as in China and the USSR? Such high degrees of centralization have shown to include high levels of mismanagement, poorly allocated resources, etc.
I do not disagree with anarchists on everything, I think that the country should be greatly controlled by absolute democracy and also that the societies should not get to the size they were in the Soviet Union as to make it easier to address the needs of each individual group, however I do think there should still be a union of socialist countries with a network of governments cooperating with each other creating a federation of communist countries which work for the benefit of each other and shares one military.

The more decentralized the communities are, the more that these individual communities are able to decide what they need, as opposed to relying on some politico 3000 miles away to decide what the community needs.
They may not be able to supply what they need to themselves though, they could need the help of the other regions, which I feel would require a stronger authority to make sure the other community does not try to make a ridiculous profit from the expense of the community in need.

There's the internet and various other forms of modern communication.
What if there are massive power problems, or a sudden disaster causing isolation, such as the collapse of the levies in New Orleans, or the bombing of Hiroshima, where communication to the city was cut off, leaving the government uninformed of the bombing until the second atrocity? Would the communication be regular enough for people to find out about this?

Same can be said about communist leadership.
I can give you that, this is why we need the extensive bureaucracy though, to keep one of these small groups from gaining enough power to cause large scale damage.

Besides, If you were at a party, there is a very good chance that your fellow party goers were drunk.
The girl attacking the guy wasn't actually drinking, but yes, there were many drunk people there, how would that change under communism?

Pirate turtle the 11th

16th February 2009, 21:31

You seem to ignore that violent crime doesn't occur in a vacuum, it has larger social causes. Certainly a communist society wouldn't be a paradise, but much of the reason for people shooting other people would be significantly lessened, if not dissapear.

Agreed.

eisidisirock

16th February 2009, 23:51

What does populance mean?

Pogue

17th February 2009, 01:07

Agreed.

Insane and irrelevant to be honest, communism is a far away goal. There are crimes to do with lust, general anger, etc. This is so naive its ridiculous, and never ever convinces the average person of anything because its baseless. We need to do better than that.

StalinFanboy

17th February 2009, 01:22

Pirate turtle the 11th

17th February 2009, 10:02

Cant we just keep the normal, police force we already have? jobs will remain the same only people will be equal, and no overloards and such. Community security (aka. police) is a job.

No. Anyone who is willing to protect murdering pieces of shit on a daily basis is in no way going to be given any responsibilities.

Comrade B

18th February 2009, 00:39

Rofl. Am I the only one who noticed that Comrade B used Anarchist Spain as an argument when it favored him, but when Comrade Joe used it as an argument it suddenly wasn't valid?

Bravo.

They aren't the same issue, thanks for oversimplifying this though

Guns, in comparison to what the people and what the government have, will always be pretty much in the same place of primitive arms against extremely modernized weaponry, meanwhile, the issues facing society do change.

In world war 2, French insurgents were at the disadvantage against the Nazis because they were fighting with bricks and stolen guns against a fully trained and armed military.
In Cuba the guerrillas fought tanks and bombers with m1 garands and homemade explosives.
In Spain the united left fought the fascists with hunting rifles and outdated supplies while the fascists had the full military at their disposal.

There is always a gap in the difference of military power was the point to part 1. Part 2 is about what issues a government needs to address at different times.

You are just the only one who decides to pick at tiny irrelevant things in an argument rather than giving a subject for discussion.

Pirate turtle the 11th

18th February 2009, 12:02

An army controlled by the leadership of a country will have a far larger military industry backing them, providing them with tanks and modernized weaponry, making them more powerful than a militia

No because Iraq had tanks and planes and it got the shit beaten out of it. The the insurgency however is much more powerful.

They may not be able to supply what they need to themselves though, they could need the help of the other regions, which I feel would require a stronger authority to make sure the other community does not try to make a ridiculous profit from the expense of the community in need.

Whats to say the stronger authority does not make a ridiculous profit for themselves?

What if there are massive power problems, or a sudden disaster causing isolation, such as the collapse of the levies in New Orleans, or the bombing of Hiroshima, where communication to the city was cut off, leaving the government uninformed of the bombing until the second atrocity? Would the communication be regular enough for people to find out about this?

Well yes. Federations of communes and the like.

Btw incase your wondering anarchists dont have anything agasint phones , the internet etc.

I can give you that, this is why we need the extensive bureaucracy though, to keep one of these small groups from gaining enough power to cause large scale damage.

Other groups can do that.

Comrade B

19th February 2009, 01:06

No because Iraq had tanks and planes and it got the shit beaten out of it. The the insurgency however is much more powerful.
The US had more powerful tanks and planes.
The insurgency has a giant population of civilians who they are confused with, it is not a clean fight going on, civilians die regularly in the crossfire.

Whats to say the stronger authority does not make a ridiculous profit for themselves?
Spreading out the power among the authority so that no one person can really make a decision only benefiting themselves

Btw incase your wondering anarchists dont have anything agasint phones , the internet etc.
What about my examples of disaster where communication is cut off?

Other groups can do that.
Only after the problem has caused damage though. The bureaucracy can stop the problem in the making

Die Neue Zeit

22nd February 2009, 06:17

This was always fine with me. A professional police force with elected officials and democratic oversight is compatible with socialism. If they screw up, they're recalled.

If there has to be a professional police force, then yes the officers should be subject to recall. However, I'm for random sortition (demarchy) rather than the radical republicanism you're advocating.

Melbourne Lefty

23rd February 2009, 02:11

so wait, who here is in favour of current gun control laws?

Bitter Ashes

23rd February 2009, 11:30

so wait, who here is in favour of current gun control laws?
*puts her hand up*
It only takes one derranged individual to cause another Dunblane incident. Why's everyone drooling at the prospect of having a firearm anyway? They're for killing people.

Comrade B

24th February 2009, 00:34

so wait, who here is in favour of current gun control laws?
For what country?
It cannot be made that simple for the present world. In a country like the US I appreciate that the country has done such a terrible job at securing its weapons because they tend to land in the hands of those that dislike it, such as was the case in the Cuban revolution, however in a communist society, the present gun laws are far too relaxed.

Kernewek

26th February 2009, 11:00

A full time police force is essential, dealing with criminals isn't an easy job it's something that needs specialist training. You also have to remember the police do a lot more than just serve as a presence on the street, a long term criminal investigation is a lot of work. I don’t see how it’s something that can be replaced by a part time volunteer militia

However the police need to work for the people, those in charge should be democratically elected and their actions must be open to public scrutiny

Pirate turtle the 11th

26th February 2009, 19:01

*puts her hand up*
It only takes one derranged individual to cause another Dunblane incident. Why's everyone drooling at the prospect of having a firearm anyway? They're for killing people.

Because an armed population is essential under communism otherwise communism would end.

Pirate turtle the 11th

26th February 2009, 19:02

Pogue

26th February 2009, 19:35

What if the police decided to start a coup?

What if some of the other thousands of armed people deiced to start a coup?

Pirate turtle the 11th

26th February 2009, 19:40

What if some of the other thousands of armed people deiced to start a coup?

Then the people who are not starting a coup will kick their heads in.

SocialismOrBarbarism

26th February 2009, 20:12

What if the police decided to start a coup?

A professional police force and an armed populace aren't mutually exclusive, look at the US.

Pirate turtle the 11th

26th February 2009, 20:23

A professional police force and an armed populace aren't mutually exclusive, look at the US.

There is a chance the armed population may not be able to overcome the policeforce

(also - police as a career is unacceptable in communism)

Kernewek

26th February 2009, 23:50

What if the police decided to start a coup?

There is a chance the armed population may not be able to overcome the policeforce

limit the police forces access to guns, you only need a relitivly small number of armed police

(also - police as a career is unacceptable in communism)
why? it's an important job which contributes to society

Bitter Ashes

27th February 2009, 11:22

Because an armed population is essential under communism otherwise communism would end.
Why? Just in case somebody disagrees with a personal opinion on the status quo, a volatile individual can skip all the democracy, investigation, evidence gathering, defendant's rights and trial and get straight down to the murder, no questions asked until it's too late?
So, how does losing the easy ability to shoot your next door neighour, threaten the future of communism?

Pirate turtle the 11th

1st March 2009, 11:47

limit the police forces access to guns, you only need a relitivly small number of armed police

Im sorry but thats still more guns then the armed population would had.

It would also mean we would get slaughtered in a war. A trained army of millions of insurgents however would be a force to be reckoned with.

But people like you would probably sit there with beatboxes playing rage against the machine rather then do anything useful.

why? it's an important job which contributes to society

Because they are ****s and its unhealthy to want to be a thug for a living. An Armed rotational response team would be much more suitable.

Pirate turtle the 11th

1st March 2009, 11:48

Why? Just in case somebody disagrees with a personal opinion on the status quo, a volatile individual can skip all the democracy, investigation, evidence gathering, defendant's rights and trial and get straight down to the murder, no questions asked until it's too late?
So, how does losing the easy ability to shoot your next door neighour, threaten the future of communism?

Coups
Invasions

Power really does come out the barrel of a gun and if the working class is going to have power it needs guns.

Pirate turtle the 11th

1st March 2009, 11:49

Scaeme do you even want a revolution?

Pirate turtle the 11th

1st March 2009, 14:26

The US had more powerful tanks and planes.

Once which we wont be able to match.

The insurgency has a giant population of civilians who they are confused with, it is not a clean fight going on, civilians die regularly in the crossfire.

Civilians do tend to die in wars. Shame really.

Spreading out the power among the authority so that no one person can really make a decision only benefiting themselves

No because putting somone in the role of a boss makes them think and act like a boss.

What about my examples of disaster where communication is cut off?

Well what about it? I dont suppose a centralized millitry will be able to do anything about it either.

Only after the problem has caused damage though. The bureaucracy can stop the problem in the making

The bureaucracy can fuck off and die.

Bitter Ashes

1st March 2009, 17:10

Scaeme do you even want a revolution?
Depends heavily upon what's involved. I dont see mass waves of orphans and widows bieng a healthy start for a new society. Going around arbitarilly deporting and shooting people for wearing a uniform that incorporates a bright star is a tactic that another political movement tried. :glare:
http://www.vccasino.com/games/img/wwstar.jpghttp://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Holocaust/images/star.jpg

edit: I calmed down a bit and thought I better just add a quick footnote that none of this applies if you're not actualy serious about killing all those people :)

Pirate turtle the 11th

2nd March 2009, 18:23

robbo203

2nd March 2009, 18:40

No - fucking - way im sorry but i felt like crying when reading this.

People are going to make guns even if you tell them its naughty. People are capable of making guns undetected quite well.

To eliminate or at any rate reduce to negligible propotions the incidence of violence you have to eliminate its cause. Most violence is related to property directly or indirectly. In a communist society people would have free access to goods and services because the means of production would be commonly owned. In these circumstances what would be the point of mugging or theft, None whatosever.

The gratuitous and idiotic violence that some workers indulge in is a reflection of the alienated lives we lead, the egotistical ideology of the market and the competitve ethos we drip-fed on.

Renove the basic reason for violence and you remove all the motive for resorting to guns and other such instruments of violence

REVOLUTIONARY32

2nd March 2009, 18:58

In many parts of the north of Ireland militant anti agreement republicans are very active in policeing the community they are very effective in their type of justice where a acceptable police force dose not exsist.

Dealing Drugs - Shot in both ankles and elbows.
Extrem Anti Social behaviour - Shot in the kneecaps.
Peadophilies - Punishment beating and usually shot in kneecaps.
These actions are supported by most of the people in the areas they take place.

Pirate turtle the 11th

2nd March 2009, 19:56

To eliminate or at any rate reduce to negligible propotions the incidence of violence you have to eliminate its cause. Most violence is related to property directly or indirectly. In a communist society people would have free access to goods and services because the means of production would be commonly owned. In these circumstances what would be the point of mugging or theft, None whatosever.

The gratuitous and idiotic violence that some workers indulge in is a reflection of the alienated lives we lead, the egotistical ideology of the market and the competitve ethos we drip-fed on.

Renove the basic reason for violence and you remove all the motive for resorting to guns and other such instruments of violence

Communism is not some kinda heaven there will still be a need for weopens and security. Your right though alot of crime will go down.

robbo203

3rd March 2009, 01:21

Communism is not some kinda heaven there will still be a need for weopens and security. Your right though alot of crime will go down.

I dont see communism as some kind of heaven on earth - just a more practical and beneficial way of organising society. But the question remains - what purpose would weapons serve in a stateless society in which all have free access to the things they need. This is the point you need to address

Pirate turtle the 11th

3rd March 2009, 16:55

I dont see communism as some kind of heaven on earth - just a more practical and beneficial way of organising society. But the question remains - what purpose would weapons serve in a stateless society in which all have free access to the things they need. This is the point you need to address

Just because we wouldnt have guns that wouldnt stop other people.

And id rather not have a coup or a funneral.

Invincible Summer

3rd March 2009, 19:22

I dont see communism as some kind of heaven on earth - just a more practical and beneficial way of organising society. But the question remains - what purpose would weapons serve in a stateless society in which all have free access to the things they need. This is the point you need to address

Although communism has to be international, that doesn't mean that it will encompass the entire world at one time. We're going to have to defend against somebody at various points, IMO.

Pirate turtle the 11th

3rd March 2009, 19:24

SocialismOrBarbarism

4th March 2009, 00:37

There is a chance the armed population may not be able to overcome the policeforce

(also - police as a career is unacceptable in communism)

There is also a chance that the armed population may not be able to overcome another section of the armed population if they decide to pull something. If there were a professional police force in communism it wouldn't have equipment on the scale police do now because crime rates would be a lot lower and it wouldn't be organized for the purposes of controlling the population. If we can win a revolution, we can take out a police force.

I have no problem with policeman being slaughtered on mass and would quite happily execute every one one of them if needed.

Ps Comparing jews to policemen is disgusting. Jews do not protect the interests of the ruling class no matter what some fucked up nazbol on scumfront says.

You sure do a good job of reinforcing the stereotype of anarchists being a bunch of dumb violent teenagers.

robbo203

4th March 2009, 12:08

^ Spot on

also you can have a piece of paper that says "no guns" but that dosent mean there will be no guns. Its just the kinda people who will risk going to jail for trival things will have them.

And in my expirence they are ****s.

The point is that you cannot base a revolutionary strategy on violence. The less violence there is, the better. Its not that I rule out the possibility of violence - it may occur in the changeover to a communist society - but if you go around theatening to execute cops on the spot this is only going to invite unnecessary retaliation which gets in the way of facilitating the introduction of communism. Cops are, after all, fellow members of the working class however screwed up they might be in ideological terms (like many other workers)

The expression "peacefully if we can . violently if we must" is the one I would subscribe to. The use of violence should be kept to an absolute minimum. Violence requires authoritarianism which runs counter to the democratic values of a communist movement

I actually think that the growth of strong democratic communist movement to the point where we are talking about millions upon millions of people embracing communist values and a communist outlook on life will have an effect on capitalist society and the whole social climate so profound as to make many of the problems we are talking about more or less redundant. For example, I cannot see a recalcitrant minority refusing to accept the will of the majority. On the eve of the communist revolution it will be far too late in the day to do anything about it. If the ruling class are going to stop a communist movement in its tracks, the time to do will be when the movement is still small. BY the time it is a massive movement its influence will have permeated everywhere (including the armed forces and the cops - at the very least such individuals will have relatives and friends who will be communists). The very nature of opposition to communism will itself be influenced by this mass communist presence. Two diametrically opposed ways of looking at things cannot both flourish in the same environment. One has to grow at the expense of the other. The growth of communism and the democratic values it embodies will stifle and smother anti-democratic sentiments - the very sentiments that would drive a recalcitrant minority to take up arms to resist the will of the majority

On the eve of the communist revolution, the opposition we will face will not be the opposition of fascistic belligerant state thugs but the opposition of bourgeois democrats half in sympathy with the communist aim in any case

Kernewek

4th March 2009, 12:31

Im sorry but thats still more guns then the armed population would had.
depends how much of the population are armed

Because they are ****s and its unhealthy to want to be a thug for a living.

nice generalisation

It would also mean we would get slaughtered in a war. A trained army of millions of insurgents however would be a force to be reckoned with.

and as other people have pointed out one group of insurgents could kick off just as easily as the police
getting rid of one police force and replacing them with a poorly trained part time police force isn’t going to solve anything

But people like you would probably sit there with beatboxes playing rage against the machine rather then do anything useful.

lol

An Armed rotational response team would be much more suitable.
would these Armed rotational response team be trained to run a criminal investigation? trained in interview techniques, surveillance, forensics and all the other bollocks that the police do?

as I have already said, carrying out a long running investigation is a full time job, crime isn't something that can be efficiently dealt with by a part time militia alone

In many parts of the north of Ireland militant anti agreement republicans are very active in policeing the community they are very effective in their type of justice where a acceptable police force dose not exsist.

Dealing Drugs - Shot in both ankles and elbows.
Extrem Anti Social behaviour - Shot in the kneecaps.
Peadophilies - Punishment beating and usually shot in kneecaps.
These actions are supported by most of the people in the areas they take place.
calling that justice is absolutely disgusting

Pogue

4th March 2009, 12:41

I have no problem with policeman being slaughtered on mass and would quite happily execute every one one of them if needed.

Ps Comparing jews to policemen is disgusting. Jews do not protect the interests of the ruling class no matter what some fucked up nazbol on scumfront says.

I agree with the second half of this post, but I think the first half is sort of immature. It isn't justifiable to slaughter loads of people except in self-defence. If thats what you're referring to then fine. I doub tmany people would support mass slaughter of any group unless it was in the context of basically thrasing them in a war. Also, not all police are completel scum, but I'd say the majority are and anyway its irrelevant when you consider their role. Basically, in a revolutionary period, ayone who hasn't quit the police is someone we can assume is intent on protecting the ruling elite.

I think you'd have a problem with personally killing people and denying this is silly. War is not something to fetishise and that is why I'm not so happy with a completely militarised population because of the effects this can have psychologically. It can create the sort of culture we don't want. We fight when neccesary and we fight fairly (except when fighting 'fairly' means being destroyed).

If you were happy to shoot every single copper regardless of how brutal they themselves were I'd question your sanity and humanity.

Pirate turtle the 11th

4th March 2009, 18:41

There is also a chance that the armed population may not be able to overcome another section of the armed population if they decide to pull something. If there were a professional police force in communism it wouldn't have equipment on the scale police do now because crime rates would be a lot lower and it wouldn't be organized for the purposes of controlling the population. If we can win a revolution, we can take out a police force.

Yes their is that chance but my moneys on the majority and its unlikely the majority will revolt since it would be much more logical to use direct democracy.

Also I do not want a revolution every four years because the police are the only ones with guns. That would kind of slow progress

(on top of that we may as well commit mass suicide if we ever get into a war if our only defense is a poorly armed police force)

You sure do a good job of reinforcing the stereotype of anarchists being a bunch of dumb violent teenagers.

You sure do the a good job of reinforcing the stereotype of a leftist movement infested by liberal dolts.

Pirate turtle the 11th

4th March 2009, 18:51

I agree with the second half of this post, but I think the first half is sort of immature. It isn't justifiable to slaughter loads of people except in self-defence. If thats what you're referring to then fine.

What im saying is that I wouldnt be in the middle of a revolution and turn round and say "hey lads we have shot alot of police recently this is getting out of order - lets drop all the revolution marlarky and go watch a place in the sun". If the situation demmanded it I would have no problem with killing every single cop.

I think you'd have a problem with personally killing people and denying this is silly. War is not something to fetishise and that is why I'm not so happy with a completely militarised population because of the effects this can have psychologically. It can create the sort of culture we don't want. We fight when neccesary and we fight fairly (except when fighting 'fairly' means being destroyed).

Communism wont work or be able to survive without an armed population its that simple. And yes personally i suspect I would be fine killing somone in a fit of rage or while pumped full of adrenalin but i suspect if i ever had to execute somone it would mess me up for a while.

Then again i dont know what i would do considering the only time I have being near a gun fight my first reaction was to get on the next bus going away from that area.

But anyway it comes down to this

A = We need an armed population or we wont be able to maintain communism

B = If the police need to be shot them let them be shot.

4th March 2009, 19:24

and as other people have pointed out one group of insurgents could kick off just as easily as the police

So communities are just 'insurgents', what are you talking about?

getting rid of one police force and replacing them with a poorly trained part time police force isn’t going to solve anything

How is a self-supporting community anything like the police we have now? In the UK there are "Police Community Support Officers" except they are morons not even from the local community usually, I've seen weak bully-looking types too many times in the police and have seen someone telling one "you were the pathetic spiteful bully kid at school that got bullied", well shit if that's what the ones that are from the local community are like..........

would these Armed rotational response team be trained to run a criminal investigation? trained in interview techniques, surveillance, forensics and all the other bollocks that the police do?

Emphasis on bollocks. Corrupt harrassing of people and causing nasty resentment between communities, not helping and supporting the communities as they should.

as I have already said, carrying out a long running investigation is a full time job, crime isn't something that can be efficiently dealt with by a part time militia alone

A community can deal with anything, this has been proven by history time and time again.

Kernewek

4th March 2009, 19:44

So communities are just 'insurgents', what are you talking about?
I'm saying that one armed group are just as likely to attempt a coup as another armed group, whether you call these people, vigilantes, police, soldiers, insurgents, militia or armed rotational response teams is irrelevant

How is a self-supporting community anything like the police we have now? In the UK there are "Police Community Support Officers" except they are morons not even from the local community usually, I've seen weak bully-looking types too many times in the police and have seen someone telling one "you were the pathetic spiteful bully kid at school that got bullied", well shit if that's what the ones that are from the local community are like..........

I've not said anything about the police we have now, I fail to see how that has any relivance to anything I've said

what I am saying is that an armed part time militia are just as likely to attempt a coup as a police force would be

Emphasis on bollocks. Corrupt harrassing of people and causing nasty resentment between communities, not helping and supporting the communities as they should.

thinking more about all that goes into a criminal investigation, if a small girl is found raped and murdered someone needs to find out who is responsible

How would you propose we go about this?

A community can deal with anything, this has been proven by history time and time again.
if you have members of the community who are trained to carry out a criminal investigation in a professional manner then yes they can deal with crime

4th March 2009, 19:56

I'm saying that one armed group are just as likely to attempt a coup as another armed group, whether you call these people, vigilantes, police, soldiers, insurgents, militia or armed rotational response teams is irrelevant

I call them communities, if several communities attempt a singular coup on one or more of them then it's just going to be overturned.

I've not said anything about the police we have now, I fail to see how that has any relivance to anything I've said

Um you were talking about investigation and how a community could not manage it?

what I am saying is that an armed part time militia are just as likely to attempt a coup as a police force would be

See above.

thinking more about all that goes into a criminal investigation, if a small girl is found raped and murdered someone needs to find out who is responsible

How would you propose we go about this?

There will be people in the community with investigative minds that will help solve the problem, if there aren't any for some reason then another community is asked for help from.

if you have members of the community who are trained to carry out a criminal investigation in a professional manner then yes they can deal with crime

Obviously that's the point. My point is the police currently don't train people to investigate in a 'professional' manner, that's partly why they are shit.

Pirate turtle the 11th

4th March 2009, 19:59

depends how much of the population are armed

lol

would these Armed rotational response team be trained to run a criminal investigation? trained in interview techniques, surveillance, forensics and all the other bollocks that the police do?

Alot of its bollocks as you said and could be dropped. However investigator could be a full time job. However he would not do any patrolling , arrest making etc.

As with the rest of your post it boilts down to this

Do you want communism or will you be put off by the idea that people will have guns?

Kernewek

4th March 2009, 20:03

I call them communities, if several communities attempt a singular coup on one or more of them then it's just going to be overturned.

and if the police force attempt a coup the armed community can fight it the same way

Um you were talking about investigation and how a community could not manage it?

um in the part you quoted I was talking about how any armed group could attempt a coup the same way the police could

There will be people in the community with investigative minds that will help solve the problem, if there aren't any for some reason then another community is asked for help from.

investigative minds are great, but they would be better if they had the resources and training required to carry out a criminal investigation

Obviously that's the point. My point is the police currently don't train people to investigate in a 'professional' manner, that's partly why they are shit.
and I've never said I want to keep the police force as it is now

Do you want communism or will you be put off by the idea that people will have guns?
I didn't realise that a police force and an armed population where mutually exclusive ideas

4th March 2009, 20:17

and if the police force attempt a coup the armed community can fight it the same way

Uh..great?

um in the part you quoted I was talking about how any armed group could attempt a coup the same way the police could

We know that already.

investigative minds are great, but they would be better if they had the resources and training required to carry out a criminal investigation

They would have the resources they needed and as I said training is subjective.

and I've never said I want to keep the police force as it is now

Glad to hear it although it seems to me too hierarchical to have a police force, also how would you like to have it then?

I didn't realise that a police force and an armed population where mutually exclusive ideas

It would seem pointless from any perspective to have both to me as (if it's an ok police force the one you're talking about) the police force = members of the population, not some delusional weirdo arseholes like most police are now.

Pirate turtle the 11th

4th March 2009, 20:17

I didn't realise that a police force and an armed population where mutually exclusive ideas

Frequent gun battles and attempted coups are not an aspect of communist socitey I would like.

Why take the risk that a coup is successful?

Kernewek

4th March 2009, 23:27

Glad to hear it although it seems to me too hierarchical to have a police force, also how would you like to have it then?

well under a socilist economy I doubt we would need a police force anywhere near as large as we have now, it could easily be run democratically by the local community, if the police are an active part of the community I don't think we would have this "us verses them" mentality which seems to exist between the police and the general population, and if the police aren't doing their job to serve the community then the people should be able to boot them out

tbh I don't see how a police force would pose much threat of a coup either, they're such a small group that an armed population shouldn't have any trouble with them

4th March 2009, 23:44

well under a socilist economy I doubt we would need a police force anywhere near as large as we have now, it could easily be run democratically by the local community, if the police are an active part of the community I don't think we would have this "us verses them" mentality which seems to exist between the police and the general population, and if the police aren't doing their job to serve the community then the people should be able to boot them out

In my opinion, if they aren't big enough they won't even be able to attempt to do their job (how you would like it to be done) properly.

tbh I don't see how a police force would pose much threat of a coup either, they're such a small group that an armed population shouldn't have any trouble with them

Why can't the armed population just do the policing of sorts themselves, a police force in my opinion could create a more sectarian mentality, even if a minor one. Keeping it in-house is not a bad thing, it also doesn't mean there has to be "less talent" or "professionalism".

Kernewek

5th March 2009, 00:02

In my opinion, if they aren't big enough they won't even be able to attempt to do their job (how you would like it to be done) properly.

depends how much crime we have under a socialist system

Why can't the armed population just do the policing of sorts themselves, a police force in my opinion could create a more sectarian mentality, even if a minor one. Keeping it in-house is not a bad thing, it also doesn't mean there has to be "less talent" or "professionalism".
Because they aren't trained for it. It's not just a case of grabbing people off the streets, these people are going to be the first on a crime scene and the first people to speak to both witnesses and criminals, they need to be well trained in interview techniques, crime scene preservation, gathering evidence, how to deal with suspects

it's a full time job which requires specialist training

robbo203

5th March 2009, 00:04

Why can't the armed population just do the policing of sorts themselves, a police force in my opinion could create a more sectarian mentality, even if a minor one. Keeping it in-house is not a bad thing, it also doesn't mean there has to be "less talent" or "professionalism".

Oh for heavens sake . This is beginning to sound like a right wing survivalist jamboree with all this talk of an armed populace. You have to start surely from the basic premiss of what communism is all about. It is a society in which goods are freely available for direct appropropiation and are produced by voluntary cooperation. What is the motive that would lead one to want to arm oneself in these circumstances.? To protect ones property ? In a society in which the means of production are commonly owned? Nah, that dont make sense.

Ok for those of who think that classless communism is just a utopian dream here´s a question for you. If it is not classless communism that means youve got a state. Right? Now tell me how the hell are you going to have a state monopolising the means of violence yet allowing the general population to somehow go around armed to the teeth and doing the job of policing themselves. I would be curious to know

5th March 2009, 00:19

Oh for heavens sake . This is beginning to sound like a right wing survivalist jamboree with all this talk of an armed populace.

You've lost me but that sounds like one of those crappy shows on ITV dropping people off int he jungle for a few weeks.

You have to start surely from the basic premiss of what communism is all about. It is a society in which goods are freely available for direct appropropiation and are produced by voluntary cooperation. What is the motive that would lead one to want to arm oneself in these circumstances.? To protect ones property ? In a society in which the means of production are commonly owned? Nah, that dont make sense.

So you are saying there will be no conflict even though.. everyone else here agrees there is the potential for coups from groups that oppose the whole idea..

Ok for those of who think that classless communism is just a utopian dream here´s a question for you.

:confused:

If it is not classless communism that means youve got a state. Right? Now tell me how the hell are you going to have a state monopolising the means of violence yet allowing the general population to somehow go around armed to the teeth and doing the job of policing themselves. I would be curious to know

:confused:

SocialismOrBarbarism

5th March 2009, 01:09

Yes their is that chance but my moneys on the majority and its unlikely the majority will revolt since it would be much more logical to use direct democracy.

The majority? That's not even what anyone was talking about. We were talking about a minority revolting. If the police can do it, so can any other random minority of the armed populace.

Also I do not want a revolution every four years because the police are the only ones with guns. That would kind of slow progress Like I've said, armed police and armed populace aren't mutually exclusive. Can you actually argue without misrepresenting others position or distorting the argument?

(on top of that we may as well commit mass suicide if we ever get into a war if our only defense is a poorly armed police force)

Conflicting positions much?

You sure do the a good job of reinforcing the stereotype of a leftist movement infested by liberal dolts.

I know, not wanting to brutally slaughter every single cop is so liberal. :rolleyes:

I didn't realise that a police force and an armed population where mutually exclusive ideas

Without that assumption he doesn't have any argument, except for "well the cops could do a coup." And when you confront him with the fact that any random section of the armed populace could too, he simple re-asserts his same defeated argument: "well the cops could do a coup"

5th March 2009, 01:51

depends how much crime we have under a socialist system

Does it really.

Because they aren't trained for it. It's not just a case of grabbing people off the streets, these people are going to be the first on a crime scene and the first people to speak to both witnesses and criminals, they need to be well trained in interview techniques, crime scene preservation, gathering evidence, how to deal with suspects

People can learn and also be taught things, well trained is subjective stuff.

it's a full time job which requires specialist training

Not in my opinion. In my opinion a community can do much much more than some "well trained" pigs, sorry but this is where we differ greatly in opinion.

commyrebel

5th March 2009, 02:18

Invincible Summer

5th March 2009, 04:43

Well in a communist country crime is no big probleam because money wouldn't be factor in crime and i think a kinda police but not as high as in other government. so like a thing in between armed populous and police

That is exactly what the "rotating militia" idea was

robbo203

5th March 2009, 09:23

So you are saying there will be no conflict even though.. everyone else here agrees there is the potential for coups from groups that oppose the whole idea..

Coups imply a political power structure and hence a state. By defintion, communism is a stateless society becuase it is a classless society. The state is essentially an instrument of class rule

There will still be some kinds of conflicts in a communist society e.g. over a planning decision about where to site a major peice of infrastructure. Communism however presupposes a democratic culture and hence the capacity to resolve such conflicts democratically.

There will not however be conflicts over property. If people have free access to the things they need this kind of takes away the whole point of theft. And as we know must conflict is property-based.

political_animal

5th March 2009, 09:49

What's the difference between police and armed populace? In a capitalist society, the police are the agents of control of law and order. In a socialist society, armed populace would be agents of control of law and order.

The role of any agent in controlling law and order is entirely dependant upon the system within which it is used. Merely changing the name from 'police' to 'armed populace' is irrelevant, what matters is how they are used in terms of law and order - either looking after the interests of 'the state' or 'the general populace.

political_animal

5th March 2009, 09:57

What's the difference between police and armed populace? Whether in a capitalist society or a socialist society, both are agents of the control of law and order.

Simply changing the name from police to armed populace is irrelevant, what matters is how they are used within the system in which they operate. The police may be used to protect the state but they can equally be used to preserve law and order within the population of a post-revolution society.

political_animal

5th March 2009, 10:00

Oops, must learn to edit properly :o

AnthArmo

5th March 2009, 10:15

Could someone actually move this to the Debate or Discussion forums? This has easily gone beyond a simple question of "What do you guys think" to a fully fledged debate

Kernewek

5th March 2009, 11:48

Does it really.

well yeah...
if you don't have a lot of crime then why would you need a large police force?

People can learn and also be taught things, well trained is subjective stuff.

they need to learn a lot

Not in my opinion. In my opinion a community can do much much more than some "well trained" pigs, sorry but this is where we differ greatly in opinion.
if they aren't trained in proper interview techniques they won't be able to get a reliable eyewitness report, if they aren't trained in dealing with a crime scene they're going to contaminate it, if they aren't trained in forensics they're going to miss out on a lot evidence

if we have people who are better trained they will do the job better, a full time police force will be better trained than a part time milita