Revolution and gun control

[CynicalIdealist]

What was the role of guns in past revolutions? Were they banned in pre-revolutionary China/Cuba/Russia? If the state now has the authority to ban guns, is it possible for a revolution to occur without people dying en masse?

[The Man]

As far as Russia and Cuba go, I believe they were legal to own. The state can ban guns from law-abiding citizens (Which does nothing), but people who don't follow the law will always have them. So a revolution will most likely include violence, however, I think as anarchists we should use peaceful revolution in some way/

[Amphictyonis]

What would Marx have said if he had seen the future of advanced bourgeois states? The media system, the jets, drones, CIA, DoD budget in the trillions with all manner of weapon which makes man power numbers irrelevant. A huge uprising could be squashed by a comparatively small number of Armed Forces personnel. This is the one fact that leads to to hold onto the idea of taking over the state. I can't see the bourgeois state being abolished by workers. It's too strong. Perhaps even in Marx's time it was too strong which is why he advocated a state socialist period. I just don't see millions of armed workers having the ability to overthrow the state. I might be wrong.

[CynicalIdealist]

What would Marx have said if he had seen the future of advanced bourgeois states? The media system, the jets, drones, CIA, DoD budget in the trillions with all manner of weapon which makes man power numbers irrelevant. A huge uprising could be squashed by a comparatively small number of Armed Forces personnel. This is the one fact that leads to to hold onto the idea of taking over the state. I can't see the bourgeois state being abolished by workers. It's too strong. Perhaps even in Marx's time it was too strong which is why he advocated a state socialist period. I just don't see millions of armed workers having the ability to overthrow the state. I might be wrong.

So given that fact, how should a revolution be waged?

[Paulappaul]

What would Marx have said if he had seen the future of advanced bourgeois states? The media system, the jets, drones, CIA, DoD budget in the trillions with all manner of weapon which makes man power numbers irrelevant. A huge uprising could be squashed by a comparatively small number of Armed Forces personnel. This is the one fact that leads to to hold onto the idea of taking over the state. I can't see the bourgeois state being abolished by workers. It's too strong. Perhaps even in Marx's time it was too strong which is why he advocated a state socialist period. I just don't see millions of armed workers having the ability to overthrow the state. I might be wrong.

I think you are. A revolution isn't a war. That's a Civil War, which does usually follow a Revolution. In a revolutionary period, clear lines are made. The Bourgeois overcomes its differences and unite. The Proletariat overcome its differences and unites on their objective similarities. A revolution in first world countries, usually comes in the form of a Strike. A large nation wide Mass Strike, wherein Political and Economic demands are tossed out. The seizure of Power occurs, in cities and in States. The weak Bourgeois, with little national power left, quick to react calls out its supporters, its Domestic Proletarian Dissenters and its international support. In this, a Civil War Happens. But the vast majority of the military is tied to the working class. In this a struggle inherently relies on the International Support of others, to direct the attention of their National Bourgeois to their domestic affairs.

Does that make sense? I don't really think Marx advocated State Socialism, infact he attacked it vigriously in his critique of the Gotha programme. Lassale himself, the writer of it, a State Socialist.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?" - Frederich Engels

The First, Second and Third internationals up until Stalin's reign argued for the right to bear arms.

"...the disarming of the workers was the first commandment for the bourgeois, who were at the helm of the state. Hence, after every revolution won by the workers, a new struggle, ending with the defeat of the workers." - Engels

"Education of all to bear arms. Militia in the place of the standing army." - Eduard Bernstein

"No standing army or police force, but the armed people." - Lenin

"Every possibility for the proletariat to get weapons into its hands must be exploited to the fullest." - Guidelines on the Organizational Structure of Communist Parties, on the Methods and Content of their Work (Adopted at the 24th Session of the Third Congress of the Communist International, 12 July 1921)

In Cuba at least there is public access to arms through things like militias.

In China it's nearly impossible for individuals to have firearms, though I'm sure there are exceptions for big capitalists and their servants.

AFAIK, it was the same in the USSR, although some hunting went on so there must have been some access. Yeltsin allowed some limited firearm ownership:

"The Federal Law On Weapons adopted under Boris Yeltsin in 1996 has enabled five million Russians to buy guns for this purpose. In Moscow alone, some 400,000 people legally keep 470,000 weapons to protect themselves, their families, and property against potential assault in these troubled times.


"The law in Russia is extremely conservative compared with that in the United States. Russians can only buy smoothbore hunting rifles of minimum 80 centimeters, gas pistols, or revolvers shooting rubber bullets. Safe use of this arsenal for five years allows purchase of a twin rifle or carbine. Stub-barreled firearms are a taboo for Russian citizens" - http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050811/41139012.html

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The media system, the jets, drones, CIA, DoD budget in the trillions with all manner of weapon which makes man power numbers irrelevant. A huge uprising could be squashed by a comparatively small number of Armed Forces personnel.

Because the U.S., with the most powerful military in the world history, has been able to easily subdue the limited forces opposing it with small arms and explosives in Iraq and Afghanistan.... right?


I can't see the bourgeois state being abolished by workers. It's too strong.

In a period of capitalist crisis, with a loss of support, with mass desertions, with an end of production brought about by mass strikes, etc.?

[Luisrah]

The thing is, if the people are truly conscious, nothing will stop them.

Imagining that every worker (except police and military) is on our side, consciously, then there is little chance the bourgeoisie will win. If they have no one to work for them, then the only way they have is to either surrender, or bomb us.

If they surrender, we win, if they bomb us, they'll lose all their credibility.

Plus, a good revolution will get the support of the military, making things much easier. In Portugal, in 1974, a bloodless revolution occurred, because the military were with us. It didn't work out well in the end, but it shows how powerful an ally the military can be.

[Rooster]

The thing is, more people died in Sergei Eisenstein's film about the October revolution than in the actual revolution itself. The taking of the Winter Palace was more or less just a formality. So I don't think guns are vital for the initial revolt.

[Reznov]

What would Marx have said if he had seen the future of advanced bourgeois states? The media system, the jets, drones, CIA, DoD budget in the trillions with all manner of weapon which makes man power numbers irrelevant. A huge uprising could be squashed by a comparatively small number of Armed Forces personnel. This is the one fact that leads to to hold onto the idea of taking over the state. I can't see the bourgeois state being abolished by workers. It's too strong. Perhaps even in Marx's time it was too strong which is why he advocated a state socialist period. I just don't see millions of armed workers having the ability to overthrow the state. I might be wrong.

I agree with you.

But, its always been like this in a way.

In Russia during Lenin's time the workers were going up against the Tsarist Police/Soldiers who would have thrown you in Siberia.

Same way during the French Revolution, when citizens were going up against French Military/Guards.

Revolution isn't meant to be won through violence (If it is it will most likely result in something we saw with Stalin in Russia I believe)

Achieving Revolution should be won through convincing the workers, through the people that a better life and more fulfilling open can be achieved through Communism.

That being said, I can see Strikes, workers not attending the workplaces, riots happening. Whether or not these will lead to Revolutionary Change? I can't see the future but I hope so.