Gun rights? [Archive]

NGNM85

27th January 2013, 23:36

Prohibition of firearms, similar to legislation enforced in the UK, and other Western nations, in the United States, would require, among other things; an act of god, and a Constitutional amendment. (In that order.) So; the Infowars crowd can chill the fuck out, already. That said, I think there's certainly room for some sensible regulation. It seems implicitly obvious that the gun show loophole should be closed. Furthermore; I see no reason why violent felons; such as convicted rapists, and murderers, or the seriously mentally ill; schizophrenics, for example, should be able to obtain assault weapons. Especially in the light of the recent tragedies, such benign regulation seems sensible, and appropriate.

As for the Radicals who insist any Socialist should axiomatically oppose any, and all firearms regulation because of the 'immanent' people's revolution; I would say that they are in need of a serious reality check. Beyond the fact that there is no evidence, whatsoever, that the masses are on the brink of revolting, (Quite the contrary, in fact.) the United States military is the most technologically sophisticated fighting force on earth. It's arsenal includes, but is by no mean limited to; fleets of bombers, fighter jets, drone aircraft, a multitude of tanks, and other assorted armored vehicles, and enough nuclear weapons to expunge all life from this planet, several times over. I can assure you; there is nothing sold in the sporting goods department of Wal-Mart that is capable of bringing down an F-18, let alone a fucking aircraft carrier. Let's not lose our heads, people.

NGNM85

27th January 2013, 23:41

...I don't support assault/military weapon bans.

The problem is that they tend to utilize totally arbitrary criteria that, in many cases, has very little to do with the function of the weapon. That said; I look at some of these guns, or the grenades used by Steve Holmes is the movie theatre massacre; and I'm really at a loss to come up with a legitimate civilian application for what are, very clearly, military grade weapons.

Yazman

30th January 2013, 06:41

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

30th January 2013, 07:07

LOLseph Stalin

30th January 2013, 09:31

I guess some gun control is ok, in terms of, I don't think people should have rocket launchers, or grenades, or tanks.

But other than that, I am not cool with gun bans or sever restrictions on access to arms. I think you're right that most communists are against such a ban. I'm not sure why he would think we're for it.

I'm guessing he's one of those people who claims communism is authoritarian state control. He claims to have lived in west Berlin(when it was split up) for a bit as a child so who knows.

Yazman

30th January 2013, 09:34

I'm guessing he's one of those people who claims communism is authoritarian state control. He claims to have lived in west Berlin(when it was split up) for a bit as a child so who knows.

As with many issues, I completely agree with Noxion when it comes to guns.

As far as your friend goes, well, it's entirely possible that explains his views. Although to be fair, there really are revolutionary leftists who seem to defend & advocate authoritarian state control (bizarre, eh?). But there's just as many of us who don't.

NGNM85

30th January 2013, 18:13

As far as your friend goes, well, it's entirely possible that explains his views. Although to be fair, there really are revolutionary leftists who seem to defend & advocate authoritarian state control (bizarre, eh?). But there's just as many of us who don't.

Like the sizable coterie of Stalinists who like to wax romantic about gulags, and 'reeducation camps'?

Requiring people to submit to a background check before they buy an assault rifle, or limiting magazine sizes is worlds away from 1984.

Comrade Nasser

2nd February 2013, 08:42

Well, I personally think their should be more extensive background checks and tests to see if the person should be allowed to have the weapon. This is so that they may weed out the low-life criminals, fascists, Nazis, mentally ill, and the rest of those types of people from purchasing high-powered weapons. But I believe the working class should be armed and that assault weapon bans are somewhat pointless and are counter-productive to our cause.

Green Girl

2nd February 2013, 10:48

I've very opposed to all forms of gun control. I want the working class to be as armed as possible, and I do not think that we should support having the State regulate or disarm them. That being said, I think that seriously mentally ill or unstable people can be an exception to this.

I agree with this completely. An unarmed working class means Police State Fascism. If we ever expect to rise up against our oppressors we must be armed. :)

Domela Nieuwenhuis

2nd February 2013, 11:09

Except homosexuality is no longer recognized as a mental disorder, just by a few bigots. I'm talking things like bipolar, schizophrenia, etc.

I have ADD. ADD is considered to be a mental illness. I am in no way dangerous (as i've found most with ADDto be quite pacifist), why should i be restricted.

But...i would like to see all guns banned. Yes all of 'em. There is not a single reason for not banning them all. Fighting? Obviously only with unarmed men! Hunting? Doubtful anyway. Defence against state? A state without guns! Defence against crazy people with guns? Oh, wait...

But, then again, i am opposed to any sort of restriction of any right.

I guess it all comes down to the principle that everyone has the right to do whatever he wants, as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of someone else (which shooting at people clearly is)

So to summarise:

1) Within the socialist-society there too is a form of dichotomy about gun-rights.

2) I like to see guns banned, for the safety of all.

LuÃs Henrique

2nd February 2013, 11:29

I agree with this completely. An unarmed working class means Police State Fascism.

So the United Kingdom is a fascist police State?

If we ever expect to rise up against our oppressors we must be armed. :)

... and not merely with guns we can legally buy at stores, sorry.

A revolution is an illegal operation, you don't need a State license for it.

Luís Henrique

Vanguard1917

2nd February 2013, 12:38

... and not merely with guns we can legally buy at stores, sorry.

A revolution is an illegal operation, you don't need a State license for it.

Luís Henrique

That same argument can be made against a free press, the right to strike, or the freedom of assembly. 'Revolution is an illegal operation, so we don't need state permission for such things.'

In reality, however, just as it is the duty of socialists to fight for such freedoms in capitalist society, it is also socialist policy to fight for the right to bear arms.

The Marxist position:

"An oppressed class which does not strive to learn to use arms, to acquire arms, only deserves to be treated like slaves. We cannot, unless we have become bourgeois pacifists or opportunists, forget that we are living in a class society from which there is no way out, nor can there be, save through the class struggle. In every class society, whether based on slavery, serfdom, or, as at present, wage-labor, the oppressor class is always armed. Not only the modern standing army, but even the modern militia—and even in the most democratic bourgeois republics, Switzerland, for instance—represent the bourgeoisie armed against the proletariat. That is such an elementary truth that it is hardly necessary to dwell upon it. Suffice it to point to the use of troops against strikers in all capitalist countries.

"A bourgeoisie armed against the proletariat is one of the biggest fundamental and cardinal facts of modern capitalist society. And in face of this fact, revolutionary Social-Democrats are urged to “demand” “disarmament”! That is tantamount of complete abandonment of the class-struggle point of view, to renunciation of all thought of revolution. Our slogan must be: arming of the proletariat to defeat, expropriate and disarm the bourgeoisie. These are the only tactics possible for a revolutionary class, tactics that follow logically from, and are dictated by, the whole objective development of capitalist militarism. Only after the proletariat has disarmed the bourgeoisie will it be able, without betraying its world-historic mission, to consign all armaments to the scrap-heap. And the proletariat will undoubtedly do this, but only when this condition has been fulfilled, certainly not before.

"If the present war rouses among the reactionary Christian socialists, among the whimpering petty bourgeoisie, only horror and fright, only aversion to all use of arms, to bloodshed, death, etc., then we must say: Capitalist society is and has always been horror without end. If this most reactionary of all wars is now preparing for that society an end to horror, we have no reason to fall into despair. But the disarmament “demand”, or more correctly, the dream of disarmament, is, objectively, nothing but an expression of despair at a time when, as everyone can see, the bourgeoisie itself is paving the way for the only legitimate and revolutionary war—civil war against the imperialist bourgeoisie."
- Lenin

NGNM85

2nd February 2013, 16:38

That same argument can be made against a free press, the right to strike, or the freedom of assembly. 'Revolution is an illegal operation, so we don't need state permission for such things.'

In reality, however, just as it is the duty of socialists to fight for such freedoms in capitalist society, it is also socialist policy to fight for the right to bear arms.

Those are wonderful things, for the most part. Free speech, especially, is practically sacred, to me. However; I don't see how some benign regulation, like universal background checks, for firearms purchases, is an intolerable assault on our essential freedom. Also; no offense, but there's a little bit of hypocrisy in quoting Lenin in defense of civil rights.

The Marxist position:

Somebody forgot to tell Marx;

'Someday the worker must seize political power in order to build up the new organization of labor; he must overthrow the old politics which sustain the old institutions, if he is not to lose Heaven on Earth, like the old Christians who neglected and despised politics.
But we have not asserted that the ways to achieve that goal are everywhere the same. You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries -- such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland -- where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means.'

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/09/08.htm

bad ideas actualised by alcohol

2nd February 2013, 16:46

Those are wonderful things, for the most part. Free speech, especially, is practically sacred, to me. However; I don't see how some benign regulation, like universal background checks, for firearms purchases, is an intolerable assault on our essential freedom. Also; no offense, but there's a little bit of hypocrisy in quoting Lenin in defense of civil rights.

Somebody forgot to tell Marx;

'Someday the worker must seize political power in order to build up the new organization of labor; he must overthrow the old politics which sustain the old institutions, if he is not to lose Heaven on Earth, like the old Christians who neglected and despised politics.
But we have not asserted that the ways to achieve that goal are everywhere the same. You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries -- such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland -- where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means.'

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/09/08.htm

The exception Marx made is no longer correct in our current age, capitalism has changed since 1872. It is for that reason that Lenin already noted in 1917 that this was no longer the case:

“It is interesting to note, in particular, two points in the above-quoted argument of Marx. First, he restricts his conclusion to the Continent. This was understandable in 1871, when Britain was still the model of a purely capitalist country, but without a militarist clique and, to a considerable degree, without a bureaucracy. Marx therefore excluded Britain, where a revolution, even a people's revolution, then seemed possible, and indeed was possible, without the precondition of destroying "ready-made state machinery".

Today, in 1917, at the time of the first great imperialist war, this restriction made by Marx is no longer valid. Both Britain and America, the biggest and the last representatives — in the whole world — of Anglo-Saxon “liberty”, in the sense that they had no militarist cliques and bureaucracy, have completely sunk into the all-European filthy, bloody morass of bureaucratic-military institutions which subordinate everything to themselves, and suppress everything. Today, in Britain and America, too, "the precondition for every real people's revolution" is the smashing, the destruction of the "ready-made state machinery" (made and brought up to the “European”, general imperialist, perfection in those countries in the years 1914-17).”(V.I. Lenin, State and Revolution)

LuÃs Henrique

2nd February 2013, 17:03

The exception Marx made is no longer correct in our current age, capitalism has changed since 1872.

As Thompson - or would that be Thomson? - I would say more; it was invalid even at the time Marx wrote it.

But of course the private ownership of guns isn't revolutionary. While leftists delude themselves that the actual guns in the hands of actual people in the United States will some day serve to overthrow the bourgeoisie, in practice, day after day, they are used to kill the Martin Travvyons of life.

The causal effect is the opposite. The ownership of guns won't make a revolution. A revolution will put guns in the hands of the working class.

Luís Henrique

The Red Comet

2nd February 2013, 17:07

I actually agree with this. It's disgusting how the mentally ill can get such easy access to weapons in America. Most mass shootings have been by the mentally ill too. America needs a better healthcare system to help those with mental illnesses(or any kind of illness for that matter).

What does that word even mean, "Mentally Ill"? Who is it that is deciding who is mentally ill or not? Think about this for a moment, Comrade. Most people in the United States of America suffer from a form of mental illness - Depression being the most prevalent. If we refuse to let Working Class individuals who are simply Depressed have firearms... Then we're discounting a great majority of people.

And with some of the recent shootings. Like the Connecticut one. His "mental illness" of Autism had absolutely nothing to do with why he went out and shot people.

We must also keep in mind that Depression is most common amongst the poor in America!

Vanguard1917

2nd February 2013, 17:59

As Thompson - or would that be Thomson? - I would say more; it was invalid even at the time Marx wrote it.

But of course the private ownership of guns isn't revolutionary. While leftists delude themselves that the actual guns in the hands of actual people in the United States will some day serve to overthrow the bourgeoisie, in practice, day after day, they are used to kill the Martin Travvyons of life.

The causal effect is the opposite. The ownership of guns won't make a revolution. A revolution will put guns in the hands of the working class.

Luís Henrique

Which in practice means the bourgeoisie maintaining its monopoly on arms through its state machinery.

And if you think that the bourgeois state disarming the people - which would, i presume, include disarming black people - is some kind of anti-racist policy, you would need to provide your reasoning for this. It certainly goes against the arguments of organisations like the Black Panther Party in the '60s, as well as radical black groups still active today.

The Red Comet

2nd February 2013, 18:48

Mulford Act. I can't post links - Just look it up.

The US Government has used gun control as a means of directly attacking revolutionary movements - Such as the Black Panther Party. Gun Control is not going to stop racist killings either. Seriously? Why bring up Trayvon's Death as a Pro-Gun Control argument? The African Americans of this nation should have access to guns to protect themselves from the racist pigs. Just like the Black Panthers did! Whites will still use improvised weapons or their fist to carry out racist killings.

Last time I checked a noose wasn't a gun.

LOLseph Stalin

2nd February 2013, 19:15

Utopist M, why would you want all guns banned? It's just taking away one of the workers forms of self-defense against the ruling classes. If there's a revolution surely weapons will be needed, yes?

Hermus

3rd February 2013, 00:57

NGNM85

3rd February 2013, 05:10

As Thompson - or would that be Thomson? - I would say more; it was invalid even at the time Marx wrote it.

To be clear, you're saying Marx; the Marx of 1872, of Das Kapital, was wrong. That is, if I'm understanding you correctly.

Domela Nieuwenhuis

3rd February 2013, 06:57

Utopist M, why would you want all guns banned? It's just taking away one of the workers forms of self-defense against the ruling classes. If there's a revolution surely weapons will be needed, yes?

Did you hear what you said? If all guns are banned...all guns...self-defence against the ruling classes...

Oh you mean those unarmed ruling classes?

By the way, there are so much objects that can be turned into weapons. Ask the feudal Japanese peasantry.

Oh, and if Marx' commentary against weapons was to be incorrect in Lenin's time, why wouldn't Lenin's comment be valid in our time?

Let's Get Free

3rd February 2013, 07:27

Guns?

Heavens, such frightful things. I prefer talking things out over a nice cup of tea with some lemon meringue.

LuÃs Henrique

3rd February 2013, 07:28

To be clear, you're saying Marx; the Marx of 1872, of Das Kapital, was wrong. That is, if I'm understanding you correctly.

Yeah, on that precise subject, yes, I think Marx was wrong.

Luís Henrique

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

3rd February 2013, 12:58

First of all, in a capitalist state it will never be just the proletarians who own guns. There will always be bourgeois institutions, like the army and the police, who own guns. Those institutions are highly equipped and highly trained. If an armed proletariat would start class warfare against the police and the army chances of winning aren't very high. Instead, for a revolution to be succesful the support of the lower ranks of the police and military will be needed. They are the ones who are actually applying the advanced weapons any modern state has. Another way to revolution is of course guerilla warfare, but for example the guerilla in Cuba wasn't allowed to hold weapons. They just had them anyway. So no, ordinary people being allowed to have guns is not the way to win a revolution.

But it sure wouldn't hurt.

I don't understand this attitude at all. It's the same kind of faulty logic behind say, denying pain medication to someone with a terminal illness, simply on the grounds that pain medication doesn't cure cancer. Well no shit Sherlock, but that doesn't mean it's completely useless.

Or perhaps a better example - one turns up to a gunfight carrying a knife. One's friend sees this, and instead of either offering moral support or a gun of their own, says "no brah you can't take that knife they have guns" and takes the blade away from you, despite the fact the others are still itching for a fight.

Another argument against gun ownership is the violence that is accompanied by the ownership of guns. Instead of people using guns to defend themselves against the government, often people use guns to use violence against eachother. This is a big problem to some societies. In a socialist world people certainly wouldn't own weapons they can use for violence against their fellow man. I believe they shouldn't own them in capitalist societies either.

Beating one's swords into ploughshares is a sure-fire way of becoming the slaves of those who kept their swords.

Yazman

3rd February 2013, 13:06

As Thompson - or would that be Thomson? - I would say more; it was invalid even at the time Marx wrote it.

I love Tintin!

But of course the private ownership of guns isn't revolutionary. While leftists delude themselves that the actual guns in the hands of actual people in the United States will some day serve to overthrow the bourgeoisie, in practice, day after day, they are used to kill the Martin Travvyons of life.

The causal effect is the opposite. The ownership of guns won't make a revolution. A revolution will put guns in the hands of the working class.

Luís Henrique

I think a majority of these gun deaths are gang-related, which in most cases means poverty-related. I do agree that ownership of guns isn't necessarily revolutionary, but I do also think that a gun ban is a mere bandaid on the real problem which is again, poverty. Were people not in such dire poverty gangs would not have the prominence they do, and as a result, territorial killings etc would be far less common.

NGNM85

3rd February 2013, 19:10

Yeah, on that precise subject, yes, I think Marx was wrong.

Luís Henrique

Ok. I just wanted to clarify that. The general consensus seems to be that the later Marx's work is bible law, yet this appears to be a conspicuous exception. I just find that interesting, that even very orthodox Marxists, or, at the very least, people who claim to be very orthodox Marxists, just dismiss this so casually, like; 'Oh, yeah. That's total bullshit.' That's just sort of striking, to me.

Art Vandelay

3rd February 2013, 19:31

Ok. I just wanted to clarify that. The general consensus seems to be that the later Marx's work is bible law, yet this appears to be a conspicuous exception. I just find that interesting, that even very orthodox Marxists, or, at the very least, people who claim to be very orthodox Marxists, just dismiss this so casually, like; 'Oh, yeah. That's total bullshit.' That's just sort of striking, to me.

First off Luis Henrique isn't an 'orthodox' Marxists, that term is for a specific tendency among Marxists which draws heavy influence from the politics of the 2nd international. Now if you think that Marxism is some sort of god-like worship of Marx's holy scripts, and quite clearly you do, then you also quite clearly don't understand Marxism. To begin with, as a Materialist, Marx would of wanted to be seen as a man of his time, constrained by the same material conditions that constrain any individual during any historical epoch. Marxism (despite the name) is not a worship of Marx, but a mode of analysis; it is a paradigm; a perspective; a particular way of analyzing the world, assessing the material conditions and proposing solutions to any problems which may be apparent.

Now as on to the actual topic of the thread, instead of engaging in quote wars on this particular topic (there are indeed times when dropping a quote can be useful during polemics, but I would say that for this topic it isn't), lets just look at this issue rationally. To start I am pro-gun ownership and I think its important to preface my next comment with that; however the idea that the revolution is going to be won with the guns that, we as citizens, have access to pre-revolution, is absurd. The revolution will be won by the proletariat ran sacking barracks, by sections of the army defecting to the side of the proletariat, etc. The modern military is so advanced and complex in industrialized nations (let alone the U.S.) that the idea of engaging in some extended war is ridiculous. Now don't get me wrong, there will indeed be combat, but what I'm saying is lets not think of this in the terms of the Maoist PPW. The proletariat's strength in society does not come from arms, but from their collective relation to the means of production.

As for the reason that I am pro-gun ownership, cause guns are fun. Some of my earliest memories are going out shooting with my dad and this is coming from someone who probably doesn't have it in them to ever kill an animal (I've never been hunting) and is a vegetarian; so basically what I'm saying is I'm not your usual manly man hunter and I'm still pro-gun ownership. When it comes down to it, we as Marxists, know he underlying socio-economic reasons why violence exists in society. Banning guns isn't going to stop poverty and it isn't going to stop violent crime.

What I am most puzzled about though, in all honesty, is why Marxists would waste their time discussing an issue like this. I'm sorry to say it, but if you are anti-gun ownership, then what you are advocating is increased state control and are firmly implanting yourself in the business of reforms. Now that this pressing issue has been dealt with, I'm going to go back to discussing revolution and how to help bring it about.

NGNM85

4th February 2013, 03:56

First off Luis Henrique isn't an 'orthodox' Marxists, that term is for a specific tendency among Marxists which draws heavy influence from the politics of the 2nd international.

I wasn't talking about; Orthodox Marxists, but, rather; orthodox Marxists; Marxists who are fairly literal, and conservative in their Marxism.

I have no idea what ideology Luis subscribes to.

Now if you think that Marxism is some sort of god-like worship of Marx's holy scripts, and quite clearly you do, then you also quite clearly don't understand Marxism. To begin with, as a Materialist, Marx would of wanted to be seen as a man of his time, constrained by the same material conditions that constrain any individual during any historical epoch. Marxism (despite the name) is not a worship of Marx, but a mode
of analysis; it is a paradigm; a perspective; a particular way of analyzing the world, assessing the material conditions and proposing solutions to any problems which may be apparent.

For some people it is; for some people it isn't. We don't have to look very far to find examples.

...however the idea that the revolution is going to be won with the guns that, we as citizens, have access to pre-revolution, is absurd. The revolution will be won by the proletariat ran sacking barracks, by sections of the army defecting to the side of the proletariat, etc. The modern military is so advanced and complex in industrialized nations (let alone the U.S.) that the idea of engaging in some extended war is ridiculous. Now don't get me wrong, there will indeed be combat, but what I'm saying is lets not think of this in the terms of the Maoist PPW. The proletariat's
strength in society does not come from arms, but from their collective relation to the means of production.

I agree.

What I am most puzzled about though, in all honesty, is why Marxists would waste their time discussing an issue like this.

Even a cursory scan of the boards will find threads dedicated to substantially less meaningful subjects. Take the recent thread on the theoretical implications of; 'Bronies.' (Adults who obsess over the children's show; My Little Pony.) That was a much bigger waste of time.

I'm sorry to say it, but if you are anti-gun ownership, then what you are advocating is increased state control and are firmly implanting yourself in the business of reforms. Now that this pressing issue has been dealt with, I'm going to go back to discussing revolution and how to help bring it about.

I don't think anyone, here, supports banning firearms, except perhaps PhilosopherJay. Nor do I think anyone is suggesting that Radicals should be exerting themselves to push for increased regulation of firearms. (Although; personally, I think closing the gun show loophole sounds like a pretty sensible idea.)

Since you mentioned it; this dichotomy between reform, and revolution is false. Forcing reforms, and extracting concessions is integral to empowering the working class, raising the consciousness of the working class, and building a mass movement which are all essential prerequisites for revolution. However; that's a discussion for another thread.

Skyhilist

4th February 2013, 04:29

I don't view this as a very important issue in comparison to other ones. Not saying it shouldn't be considered, but it's very disproportionately covered, mainly as a media distraction. Having said that though, I pretty much align myself with Chomsky's beliefs on the matter.

PC LOAD LETTER

4th February 2013, 05:36

There was just a gigantic clusterfuck of a thread on this in the Politics section, so I'm just going to pop in and say I don't support gun control because:

A. It ignores the underlying causes of violent behavior in society. Banning guns without resolving these underlying causes will mean violence will manifest in different forms.

B. If your goal is to reduce the number of deaths per year, gun violence pales in comparison to alcohol, car accidents, and tobacco. All three of which can and do involve "innocent" third parties who did not consent.

C. A more effective approach to reducing the number of deaths specifically due to gun violence in capitalist society would be to build a social safety net and adopt universal public physical and mental health care. This attacks the root causes (poverty / property crime, drug violence due to poverty, serious mental illness, etc).

NGNM85

5th February 2013, 20:48

The exception Marx made is no longer correct in our current age, capitalism has changed since 1872. It is for that reason that Lenin already noted in 1917 that this was no longer the case:

“It is interesting to note, in particular, two points in the above-quoted argument of Marx. First, he restricts his conclusion to the Continent. This was understandable in 1871, when Britain was still the model of a purely capitalist country, but without a militarist clique and, to a considerable degree, without a bureaucracy. Marx therefore excluded Britain, where a revolution, even a people's revolution, then seemed possible, and indeed was possible, without the precondition of destroying "ready-made state machinery".

Today, in 1917, at the time of the first great imperialist war, this restriction made by Marx is no longer valid. Both Britain and America, the biggest and the last representatives — in the whole world — of Anglo-Saxon “liberty”, in the sense that they had no militarist cliques and bureaucracy, have completely sunk into the all-European filthy, bloody morass of bureaucratic-military institutions which subordinate everything to themselves, and suppress everything. Today, in Britain and America, too, "the precondition for every real people's revolution" is the smashing, the destruction of the "ready-made state machinery" (made and brought up to the “European”, general imperialist, perfection in those countries in the years 1914-17).”(V.I. Lenin, State and Revolution)

Yeah. I've seen that, before. That was Lenin trying to walk it back. However; as Alex Callinicos notes in; The Revolutionary Ideas of Karl Marx; that's total bullshit.

Throughout the 19th century the British state had a military machine which was used, not only in the 'filthy, bloody morass' of endless colonial wars of conquest, but also to keep Ireland under British rule, and used, especially during the first half of the century, against workers in Britain, itself.

-The Revolutionary Ideas of Karl Marx, 195-196

Callinicos goes on to note that Marx meant exactly what he appears to be saying, in the La Liberte speech. He explains Marx's lifelong belief in the potential of universal suffrage, beginning before his Radicalization, in his Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, and continuing after becoming a Socialist, in works like; The Communist Manifesto, The Class Struggles in France, and Eighteenth Brumaire. For example;

But universal suffrage is the equivalent of political power for the working class of England, where the proletariat forms the large majority of the population, where, in a long though underground civil war, it has gained a clear consciousness of its position as a class and where even the rural districts know no longer any peasants, but only landlords, industrial capitalists (farmers) and hired labourers. The carrying of universal suffrage in England would, therefore be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the continent. Its inevitable result, here is the political supremacy of the working class. (Marx's emphasis.)

-Marx, Free Trade and the Chartists
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/08/25.htm

Engels also echoed these sentiments, such as in; The Tactics of Social Democracy.

Vanguard1917

7th February 2013, 01:35

Yeah. I've seen that, before. That was Lenin trying to walk it back. However; as Alex Callinicos notes in; The Revolutionary Ideas of Karl Marx; that's total bullshit.

Throughout the 19th century the British state had a military machine which was used, not only in the 'filthy, bloody morass' of endless colonial wars of conquest, but also to keep Ireland under British rule, and used, especially during the first half of the century, against workers in Britain, itself.

-The Revolutionary Ideas of Karl Marx, 195-196

Nevertheless, Callinicos's book takes a critical view of Marx's position on universal suffrage, as we should too, i think. Or has universal suffrage brought about socialist change in any of the many countries in which it was implemented after Marx's death?

NGNM85

7th February 2013, 01:56

Nevertheless, Callinicos's book takes a critical view of Marx's position on universal suffrage, as we should too, i think.

It seems that everyone does, which is why I commented on it, earlier. It still surprises me how even fairly conservative Marxists dismiss this, out of hand.

Or has universal suffrage brought about socialist change in any of the many countries in which it was implemented after Marx's death?

I think the real issue is class consciousness. If the majority of American workers had a sufficiently high level of class consciousness, I think that universal suffrage absolutely would inevitably result in; 'the political supremacy of the working class.' There's some recognition of this fact among influential policy theorists, people like Reinhold Niebuhr, or Samuel Huntington, etc., although; not exactly in those terms. I don't think the blame for this can be placed on any one thing, I think it's a combination of factors. However; I'm inclined to think that the fact that the United States, absolutely, has the most sophisticated propaganda system, in the world, is a very significant factor.

Vanguard1917

7th February 2013, 02:14

I think the real issue is class consciousness. If the majority of American workers had a sufficiently high level of class consciousness, I think that universal suffrage absolutely would inevitably result in; 'the political supremacy of the working class.'

But surely the history of the last century showed quite clearly that the boundaries of parliamentary politics serve to stifle class consciousness and contain working-class militancy?

Mackenzie_Blanc

7th February 2013, 02:37

Domela Nieuwenhuis

7th February 2013, 05:51

I wouldn't desire a society were all guns were taken away, only perhaps for the mentally ill but criminals. That said, these mass shootings should at least send a sign that the U.S. is socially unstable with rife and inequality, and turning into a banana republic if not already.

Then my question to you is: why not take away all guns? Wouldn't the world be safer? Or do you just like firing a gun?

PC LOAD LETTER

7th February 2013, 06:26

Then my question to you is: why not take away all guns? Wouldn't the world be safer? Or do you just like firing a gun?
Make a quick run through this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxist-position-gun-t178032/index.html

It's five pages, but covers this whole topic pretty well. The fact is there isn't actually a gun violence "epidemic" in the US; it's a talking point and a red herring.

NGNM85

7th February 2013, 06:37

PC LOAD LETTER

7th February 2013, 06:43

'Epidemic' is kind of a loaded phrase. However; gun violence in the US is totally disproportionate, in comparison to other Western countries.
Apples to oranges, there is a near-non-existent social safety net in the US, compared to, for example, our Dutch companions. Socioeconomic stratification, etc. It is not to blame on "guns" but on "material circumstances".

DasFapital

7th February 2013, 20:00

I support better regulations than what we have now, primarily closing the gun show loophole because no only does that spread weapons into the inner city but also in the hands of Mexican cartels. I believe in an armed working class but I realize that the unregulated distribution of firearms has serious consequences, primarily for working class minorities.

PC LOAD LETTER

7th February 2013, 21:38

I support better regulations than what we have now, primarily closing the gun show loophole because no only does that spread weapons into the inner city but also in the hands of Mexican cartels. I believe in an armed working class but I realize that the unregulated distribution of firearms has serious consequences, primarily for working class minorities.
Re-hashed "white man's burden". Why not rectify what's causing gun violence in the first place?

NGNM85

8th February 2013, 03:52

I support better regulations than what we have now, primarily closing the gun show loophole because no only does that spread weapons into the inner city but also in the hands of Mexican cartels.

The only reason for not closing the gun show loophole is to make it easier for violent felons, (murderers, rapists, etc.) or the severely mentally ill (schizophrenics, etc.) to buy weapons. That doesn't mean closing the loophole will ensure that some of these individuals won't be able to obtain firearms, however; I just can't fathom any reason why we should be facilitating that.

I believe in an armed working class but I realize that the unregulated distribution of firearms has serious consequences, primarily for working class minorities.

That's another good point. Those who claim that Radicals should axiomatically oppose any firearms regulation should consider the social consequences. For instance; the fact that the overwhelming majority of the roughly 9,000, or so Americans killed by firearms last year were workers, or the fact that gun owners are far less likely to use their guns to defend themselves from the bourgeoisie, as they are to terrorize, or injure their spouse. Food for thought.

LOLseph Stalin

8th February 2013, 04:41

Just an interesting quote I found the other day that pretty well sums up my views on gun rights I think. Also, if anybody knows where it's from I'd love to know.

"Disarmament? – But the entire question revolves around who will disarm whom. The only disarmament which can avert or end war is the disarmament of the bourgeoisie by the workers. But to disarm the bourgeoisie, the workers must arm themselves." -Leon Trotsky

Domela Nieuwenhuis

8th February 2013, 05:47

Make a quick run through this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxist-position-gun-t178032/index.html

It's five pages, but covers this whole topic pretty well. The fact is there isn't actually a gun violence "epidemic" in the US; it's a talking point and a red herring.

Apples to oranges, there is a near-non-existent social safety net in the US, compared to, for example, our Dutch companions. Socioeconomic stratification, etc. It is not to blame on "guns" but on "material circumstances".

Both of your objections are merely from a standpoint that someone will always own guns, or that killings have a purely social cause.

Guns are made to kill or maime humans or animals. Why would you want such a thing?

Even if there is no epidemic (which i never mentioned), people are still getting hurt or killed by gun-violence. Even if there is one kill per year, it is one too many.

So i again must ask you: why not take away all guns? Wouldn't the world be safer? Or do you just like firing a gun?

NGNM85

8th February 2013, 06:16

Just an interesting quote I found the other day that pretty well sums up my views on gun rights I think. Also, if anybody knows where it's from I'd love to know.

-Leon Trotsky

If we adapt this to the present time, and place, this suggests that revolutionaries should seriously attempt to defeat the United States military, in a one-on-one confrontation. That is suicidal madness.

DasFapital

8th February 2013, 06:28

Re-hashed "white man's burden".
So if I am concerned about the fact that non-white people are far more likely to murdered by firearms than white people, that means I have patronizing views towards minorities?

Why not rectify what's causing gun violence in the first place
Yes, I am in favor of that as well but its obvious that countries that don't put some sensible controls on the distribution of firearms have far higher murder rates.

BIXX

8th February 2013, 07:00

Lets get some facts up in here: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
Now that's out if the way, I want to note that a lot of people are unaware that there is no gun show loophole in many places, for example, where I live. And you know what? I favor a zero gun control policy. I might post up the paper I wrote regarding gun control, so I can give my opinions on it. There are a few points I didn't include in the paper (as it was a school assignment and they don't like revolutionary ideas in those). I want to say that I feel we need to keep the working class as armed as possible. It may not make us win, but it can't hurt. I am in support of trying to get the militaries of the world on our side, as well, so we get the best of both worlds.

LOLseph Stalin

8th February 2013, 11:57

If we adapt this to the present time, and place, this suggests that revolutionaries should seriously attempt to defeat the United States military, in a one-on-one confrontation. That is suicidal madness.

Well now I just feel silly. I suppose that is something I overlooked, forgetting society was much different back then. *smacks self* So yea...I think I agree with you, at least in the context of North America.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

8th February 2013, 13:53

Both of your objections are merely from a standpoint that someone will always own guns, or that killings have a purely social cause.

Well in the first case, someone will always own guns, even if it is only the bourgeois state.

While murder doesn't have purely social causes, a good case can be made that the approaches most likely to reduce violence take into account the social dimension.

Guns are made to kill or maime humans or animals. Why would you want such a thing?

Guns are made to launch bullets. What those bullets are launched at can be a matter of utility, e.g. hunting.

Even if there is no epidemic (which i never mentioned), people are still getting hurt or killed by gun-violence. Even if there is one kill per year, it is one too many.

Are you willing to take the same position on alcohol and motor vehicles? If not, why not?

So i again must ask you: why not take away all guns? Wouldn't the world be safer? Or do you just like firing a gun?

I don't think bourgeois states are going to disarm themselves any time soon.

If we adapt this to the present time, and place, this suggests that revolutionaries should seriously attempt to defeat the United States military, in a one-on-one confrontation. That is suicidal madness.

Or it could be pointing out how absurd it is that liberals like you focus on the armed worker while all but ignoring the armed bourgeoisie. I wonder which one causes the far greater proportion of misery and death, hmm?

Narcissus

8th February 2013, 14:52

Well in the first case, someone will always own guns, even if it is only the bourgeois state.

Less guns, less death.

While murder doesn't have purely social causes, a good case can be made that the approaches most likely to reduce violence take into account the social dimension.

Absolutely. No-one is saying that removing guns is a magic fix, or even that it is the best solution, but we must do all that is in our power to preserve the lives of innocent people - removing guns will help.

Guns are made to launch bullets. What those bullets are launched at can be a matter of utility, e.g. hunting.

Do you really believe that? Swords are just pieces of metal that can be swung also? They are both instruments of death, and the less of them there are, the fewer people can be killed by them.

Are you willing to take the same position on alcohol and motor vehicles? If not, why not?

Alcohol is for drinking, motor vehicles are for driving. We cannot ban them because on occasion they are used for another purpose - killing people. I don't want to ban knives, because they are used to cut vegetables, and on occasion to kill people - nor baseball bats.

Guns are for killing things. This is why they were invented, this is their primary use.

I don't think bourgeois states are going to disarm themselves any time soon.

Then we must aid them in this endeavour!

Bourgeois states use tanks too. Should we have tanks? What about missiles? I don't see why we shouldn't have nukes as well.

It is so ingrained into your mind that to have a weapon is a 'right' that you believe it to be true. You have failed to rid yourself of societal conditioning, and refuse to think objectively. You place sport before life. I find it disgusting.

Or it could be pointing out how absurd it is that liberals like you focus on the armed worker while all but ignoring the armed bourgeoisie. I wonder which one causes the far greater proportion of misery and death, hmm?

Is it currently within our power to dictate to the ruling class what force they should be allowed? You know if someone had thought to just go and ask for communism we'd probably have it by now.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

8th February 2013, 15:20

Less guns, less death.

Simplistic to the point of naive stupidity. It's a cliche, but that doesn't make it any less true - guns don't kill people, people do.

Also, violence by workers against workers is a drop in the ocean compared to bourgeois violence against everyone else.

Absolutely. No-one is saying that removing guns is a magic fix, or even that it the best solution, but we must do all that is in our power to preserve the lives of innocent people - removing guns will help.

Removing guns does nothing to address why people are violent in the first place.

Do you really believe that? Swords are just pieces of metal that can be swung also? They are both instruments of death, and the less of them there are, the fewer people can be killed by them.

If there are no guns or swords, then people will use knives and clubs as killing tools. Or if they want to kill lots of people, they could still build bombs. The world could be awash with weapons, but if nobody wants to kill, then nobody would die from that.

Alcohol is for drinking, motor vehicles are for driving. We cannot ban them because on occasion they are used for another purpose - killing people. I don't want to ban knives, because they are used to cut vegetables, and on occasion to kill people - nor baseball bats.

But since it is perfectly possible to live entirely without alcohol or private motor vehicles, why not ban them if doing so will save lives according to your reasoning?

In fact, since alcohol impairs judgement, there is a a stronger case for banning that than guns.

Guns are for killing things. This is why they were invented, this is their primary use.

Sometimes it is necessary to kill, and being shot is a hell of a better way to go than being beaten to death, stabbed, crushed, strangled or poisoned.

Then we must aid them in this endeavour!

Bourgeois states use tanks too. Should we have tanks? What about missiles? I don't see why we shouldn't have nukes as well.

Tanks, missiles and nukes generally need more than one person to maintain and operate them, so I think that such things should be under the collective control of a workers' militia.

It is so ingrained into your mind that to have a weapon is a 'right' that you believe it to be true.

I consider self-defence as a right, and weapons improve the capacity for that.

You have failed to rid yourself of societal conditioning, and refuse to think objectively. You place sport before life. I find it disgusting.

You're no better. According to your own reasoning, you place access to alcohol and private motor vehicle possession before human lives.

Is it currently within our power to dictate to the ruling class what force they should be allowed? You know if someone had thought to just go and ask for communism we'd probably have it by now.

How does the fact that we cannot disarm the bourgeoisie make it acceptable to disarm the workers?

NGNM85

8th February 2013, 16:20

Or it could be pointing out how absurd it is that liberals ..

Ok. I see you've fully descended into the realm of partisan hackery.

like you focus on the armed worker while all but ignoring the armed bourgeoisie.

I don't think that trivialities, like facts, matter to you, but; the only gun control measure I explicitly supported was closing the gun show loophole, (Which is about the only gun control measure that even has the possibility of surviving congress.) although, again; I don't see any reason to expend any energy on this. As I, also, pointed out, earlier; the only possible reason one could have for not closing the gun show loophole, is to make it easier for rapists, murderers, and psychotics to buy guns, and, as I said; I just don't see any reason to facilitate that.

I wonder which one causes the far greater proportion of misery and death, hmm?

Domestically; not only are workers, overwhelmingly, the victims of gun violence, they also, overwhelmingly, tend to be the perpetrators.

Narcissus

8th February 2013, 16:26

Simplistic to the point of naive stupidity. It's a cliche, but that doesn't make it any less true - guns don't kill people, people do.

This is like dealing with a conservative 5 year old.

Take away the gun and the person has the chance to run away. Guns are easier to kill people with than knives. Guns are designed for killing.

Also, violence by workers against workers is a drop in the ocean compared to bourgeois violence against everyone else.

And therefore it's OK and we shouldn't bother trying to address it?

Removing guns does nothing to address why people are violent in the first place.

You always try to make this into an all or nothing situation, as if if the problem cannot be solved then it's not worth reducing. Or that a problem can only be addressed in one way at a time. This is a politician's trick.

Less guns - less deaths; you know it's true.

If there are no guns or swords, then people will use knives and clubs as killing tools. Or if they want to kill lots of people, they could still build bombs. The world could be awash with weapons, but if nobody wants to kill, then nobody would die from that.

It's harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun. In a world without guns more people escape assault - more people live.

But since it is perfectly possible to live entirely without alcohol or private motor vehicles, why not ban them if doing so will save lives according to your reasoning?

Once again - ban everything that can kill someone, or nothing at all. Petty.
Guns have the explicit purpose of killing things - in this regard they are inherently different to cars.

In fact, since alcohol impairs judgement, there is a a stronger case for banning that than guns.

Nope, there is a strong case for educating properly about the dangers of alcohol. Very few people drink in order to become so drunk that they kill themselves or others - and these people would do that without alcohol if there were none.

Sometimes it is necessary to kill, and being shot is a hell of a better way to go than being beaten to death, stabbed, crushed, strangled or poisoned.

I would rather be killed by carbon monoxide poisoning - I'm sure it's better than being shot. Why can't you do it that way if it really is necessary?

Tanks, missiles and nukes generally need more than one person to maintain and operate them, so I think that such things should be under the collective control of a workers' militia.

They could just as easily fall into the control of fascists though. I don't like the thought of KKK types having guns, let alone tanks and missiles.

I consider self-defence as a right, and weapons improve the capacity for that.

You want self defence? Buy a lock for your door, a suit of armour, or a shield, not a weapon. Weapons are for attacking.

You're no better. According to your own reasoning, you place access to alcohol and private motor vehicle possession before human lives.

There is a difficult balance to be struck between the freedom of practicality (having knives to chop vegetables with, and cars to get around in, and substances for escapism) AND the freedom to not be killed.

How does the fact that we cannot disarm the bourgeoisie make it acceptable to disarm the workers?

Not at all what I said. That we cannot disarm the bourgeois does not make it acceptable to NOT do all we can to prevent loss of innocent lives.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

8th February 2013, 17:03

This is like dealing with a conservative 5 year old.

This is like dealing with someone who doesn't know the actual causes of violence.

Take away the gun and the person has the chance to run away. Guns are easier to kill people with than knives. Guns are designed for killing.

Swings and roundabouts. It's easier to miss with a gun than it is with a knife, they make a lot of noise even when suppressed, increasing the chance of alerting others, and additional evidence in the form of bullet fragments and shell casings is left.

And therefore it's OK and we shouldn't bother trying to address it?

It's a question of priorities. Supporting the state in disarming the workers when that same state is reponsible for so much more death and suffering is incredibly myopic.

You always try to make this into an all or nothing situation, as if if the problem cannot be solved then it's not worth reducing. Or that a problem can only be addressed in one way at a time. This is a politician's trick.

It's not a matter of "all or nothing", it's a matter of addressing the true causes of violence. Remember that violence came before anyone knew what a firearm was.

Less guns - less deaths; you know it's true.

It's harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun. In a world without guns more people escape assault - more people live.

Not necessarily. If there's an oppressive regime and people are being lead at knifepoint into gas chambers then somehow I doubt there would be less death.

Once again - ban everything that can kill someone, or nothing at all. Petty.
Guns have the explicit purpose of killing things - in this regard they are inherently different to cars.

What's petty is that you're ignoring peoples' motivations in favour of "ban the death sticks!"

Nope, there is a strong case for educating properly about the dangers of alcohol. Very few people drink in order to become so drunk that they kill themselves or others - and these people would do that without alcohol if there were none.

The dangers of alcohol are hardly unknown, yet people still die as a result of it's consumption. Nobody can die due to alcohol if there is no alcohol.

I would rather be killed by carbon monoxide poisoning - I'm sure it's better than being shot. Why can't you do it that way if it really is necessary?

It may not be practical. In order to use poison gas or asphyxiants effectively, the agent and the target need to be confined in a small and/or an at least somewhat airtight area.

They could just as easily fall into the control of fascists though. I don't like the thought of KKK types having guns, let alone tanks and missiles.

Thing is, reactionaries have no qualms about holding weapons themselves, so if we beat our swords into ploughshares, that's just opening the door for reactionaries to seize power.

You want self defence? Buy a lock for your door, a suit of armour, or a shield, not a weapon. Weapons are for attacking.

Sometime the best form of defence is attack - striking the enemy before they can bring their imminent assault to bear. I'm not going to wait until some thug's knife enters my body before retaliating, thanks.

There is a difficult balance to be struck between the freedom of practicality (having knives to chop vegetables with, and cars to get around in, and substances for escapism) AND the freedom to not be killed.

Don't I have the right to not be killed by someone too lazy to walk or too proud to use public transit?

Not at all what I said. That we cannot disarm the bourgeois does not make it acceptable to NOT do all we can to prevent loss of innocent lives.

Have you considered that the cost of enforcing your vision would be greater than any benefits accrued?

Domela Nieuwenhuis

8th February 2013, 22:20

Well in the first case, someone will always own guns, even if it is only the bourgeois state.

So what part of total ban don't you understand?

Guns are made to launch bullets. What those bullets are launched at can be a matter of utility, e.g. hunting.

Not pro hunting. Sorry. For food? Not necessary. For control? Ask Yellowstone Parks History.

Are you willing to take the same position on alcohol and motor vehicles? If not, why not?

No. Noone forces you to drink alcohol. Cars are not made to kill. You could choke in a potatoe. Ban potatoes?

So, what do you wanna do with your gun? Shoot at cans? Kill a congressman?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

9th February 2013, 05:40

So what part of total ban don't you understand?

The bourgeoisie aren't going to relinquish their weapons until we force them to. Even then, we need to be able to deal with counter-revolutionaries.

Not pro hunting. Sorry. For food? Not necessary.

Who are you to decide that? If hunting can work out cheaper than buying from the shops, then why shouldn't workers hunt?

For control? Ask Yellowstone Parks History.

I don't know about Yellowstone, but here in the UK where there are hardly any large predators apart from humans, deer culling makes sense unless one wants deer dying of starvation due to lack of predation leading to numbers outstripping food supplies.

No. Noone forces you to drink alcohol. Cars are not made to kill. You could choke in a potatoe. Ban potatoes?

More people die due to alcohol and car accidents. Neither are necessary for survival. If one is wanting to reduce death, surely it would make more sense to concentrate on what's killing us more?

So, what do you wanna do with your gun? Shoot at cans? Kill a congressman?

I don't have a history of violence or depression, so what business is that of yours?

blake 3:17

9th February 2013, 06:00

Wouldn't be better disarming the state, capital, and fascists?

Domela Nieuwenhuis

10th February 2013, 21:57

The bourgeoisie aren't going to relinquish their weapons until we force them to. Even then, we need to be able to deal with counter-revolutionaries.

That's what the total ban is all about.

Who are you to decide that? If hunting can work out cheaper than buying from the shops, then why shouldn't workers hunt?

Uhmm...so in a moneyless communist society, how would something be 'cheaper'?

I don't know about Yellowstone, but here in the UK where there are hardly any large predators apart from humans, deer culling makes sense unless one wants deer dying of starvation due to lack of predation leading to numbers outstripping food supplies.

So, please tell me how the deer-population came to be so large? It's not by a fault in nature, it's human-made. Shoot some deer >> fuck nature up, once again.

More people die due to alcohol and car accidents. Neither are necessary for survival. If one is wanting to reduce death, surely it would make more sense to concentrate on what's killing us more?

A lot of people die of cancer. Why not ban everything that might cause cancer...
No seriously, there is a line. Again, you shoot someone else, how often is someone forcedfed alcohol to death? Cars are needed for transposrtation (although i see better and safer options in the future). Guns are made to shoot at people or animals. It is their sole purpose. For cars it's purpose is to transport. Do you see the major difference here?

I don't have a history of violence or depression, so what business is that of yours?

It's to point out that noone needs a gun. You want one.

RadioRaheem84

10th February 2013, 22:08

If we adapt this to the present time, and place, this suggests that revolutionaries should seriously attempt to defeat the United States military, in a one-on-one confrontation. That is suicidal madness.

There is also the case that there might be a huge section of the military refusing to engage in attacking American citizens if the situation came to total insurrection, idk, it's a pointless speculation but I at least wouldn't take my talking points from TYT.

NGNM85

11th February 2013, 03:13

There is also the case that there might be a huge section of the military refusing to engage in attacking American citizens if the situation came to total insurrection, idk,

If you're going to use the quote function; attribute your quotes. I know that you know how to do this.

That happens. As I understand it; much of the rank-and-file military sided with the Bolsheviks, in the Russian revolution.

...it's a pointless speculation...

Does it serve any practical purpose, at this moment, to be arguing about such things? Probably not. However; you could say that about a lot of the discussion that goes on, here. As I said, earlier; it's certainly no more of a waste of time than the thread dedicated to the theoretical implications of; 'Bronies.' (Slang for adults who fixate on children's television show; My Little Pony.)

Second; I think it's abundantly obvious that attempting to out-gun, and out-fight the entirety, or the overwhelming majority of the US armed forces, which is, clearly, what a number of people have suggested, or, at the very least; strongly implied, is suicidally insane.

but I at least wouldn't take my talking points from TYT.

It's not a talking point; it's an empirical observation. It should be obvious. I've never heard Cenk Uygur say anything to that effect; (Although; several other members have made this point, in other threads, such as; The Boss, and l'enferme.) but I'll take your word for it. That's also completely irrelevant, in every sense of the word. Again; I'll remind you of what Trotsky said when he was criticized for making some of the same criticisms of the USSR, under Stalin, that Right-wingers were making. He said, essentially; 'It's completely irrelevant who said it, what matters is that it's true.' Also, again; if you're going to reject every source of information that has not passed your ideological purity test, whatever that consists of; you're committing yourself to not understanding things. The rational approach is to read everything with a filter; even Radical publications.

Karl Renegade

15th February 2013, 09:12

Why does anyone need a gun in a modern,civilized society unless you genuinely need it for your occupation or genuinely threatened by something real as opposed to just a conspiracy theory? People who buy guns not for the reasons I mentioned surely want to use them for ill purposes. If I were to psychologically speculate, I'd say they either have repressed violent fantasies or are living in fear of something....sick,really. I'm like Mr. Piers Morgan in America, We shouldn't tolerate these psychos!

#FF0000

15th February 2013, 13:33

Why does anyone need a gun in a modern,civilized society unless you genuinely need it for your occupation or genuinely threatened by something real as opposed to just a conspiracy theory? People who buy guns not for the reasons I mentioned surely want to use them for ill purposes. If I were to psychologically speculate, I'd say they either have repressed violent fantasies or are living in fear of something....sick,really

I just like shooting at paper targets, dude.

I mean, there's also the principle of not backing the state in disarming the working class but I'm not sold on that.

I just want to shoot at paper.

Domela Nieuwenhuis

15th February 2013, 23:42

I just like shooting at paper targets, dude.

I mean, there's also the principle of not backing the state in disarming the working class but I'm not sold on that.

I just want to shoot at paper.

So why is that? Is it a way to release some stress? Are you mad at someone? Is the paper target actually a surogate for someone you'd like to shoot?
Or is it the feeling of power that you like? Does it give you the feeling that you are in control?

#FF0000

16th February 2013, 03:21

So why is that? Is it a way to release some stress?

Pretty much like any other leisure activity, yeah. It's fun and cool to see your shot improving over time.

Are you mad at someone? Is the paper target actually a surogate for someone you'd like to shoot?lmao no.

Or is it the feeling of power that you like? Does it give you the feeling that you are in control?I dunno about "power". Shooting a gun is kind of humbling, imo.

As for a feeling of control, I think you'd get that in any activity that requires a lot of mental/physical focus and finesse, e.g. literally any sport. I don't usually walk away from the shooting range feeling like I'm some uber-macho master of my world. It's more like "Neat I hit the target p. well today".

There was one time I was hitting golf balls way, way, way down range with my mauser when I first got it and I felt like a jedi or something though.

PC LOAD LETTER

16th February 2013, 04:03

Arakir

9th March 2013, 04:21

I oppose gun control. The working class must be armed as a defense against the tyranny of the ruling class. All political power comes from the barrel of a gun, and as such, gun control gives all power to our oppressors.

Sheepy

23rd March 2013, 20:21

Collectivize that shit.

Skyhilist

23rd March 2013, 20:53

If most people wanted revolution we'd have enough people to not need crazy weapons in the hands if everyday people to wage revolution. If you don't think the proletariat can carry out their own revolution though and want some smaller party to do it for them, then it makes sense why you'd want that vanguard party to be heavily armed. Personally I don't think this strategy works in terms of creating a revolution that doesn't revert back to capitalism within a few decades, and think the proletariat needs to reach enough class consciousness that they can carry out their own revolution, in order for such a revolution to have the mandate of the working class and be successful. So, using that strategy I don't think everyday people would need assault weapons. So I think some restriction is reasonable, which seems to be pretty unpopular around here. In a post-rev society with federalism, I wouldn't care if your society had whatever weapons you wanted. I just wouldn't choose to live in that society.

Kindness

23rd March 2013, 21:06

I'm for the complete banning of firearms from society. They are instruments of death, and as recent events have shown (Newtown shooting, movie theater shooting, various other spree shootings, etc.) they are often used by insane people to that effect. Generally speaking, nations with tight gun control laws have fewer gun crimes and virtually no spree shootings. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate) I see no reason why we need guns in our current society; they are only a liability, and guns would be useless in a revolution, as the people would be far outclassed by the weapons of the state.

Skyhilist

23rd March 2013, 21:30

Tenka

23rd March 2013, 21:44

Just a quick question, how do you envision a revolution realistically being carried out? How would we defend ourselves from bourgeois attacks when carrying out a revolution if we had no weapons?

Haven't you seen yon fellow's other posts? He does not want a violent revolution but a peaceful one, whatever that is.

And though I would readily participate in any ridicule coming his way, it must be said that private gun ownership "for home defence" and such classic propertarian nonsense is not likely going to win us any revolutions against the bourgeois state.

IMO though gun ban would be an alright piece of legislation if it affected cops as well. Nothing with a gun is scarier than a cop. (Of course, this is unrealistic. Not to mention, recent attempts at gun regulation in the U.S. are dead in the water; last I checked, the only proposal approved being armed guards (FUCKING COPS) in schools...)

l'EnfermÃ©

23rd March 2013, 21:45

Kindness

23rd March 2013, 21:57

Just a quick question, how do you envision a revolution realistically being carried out?

By dual power and general strike, according to the anarcho-syndicalist model.

How would we defend ourselves from bourgeois attacks when carrying out a revolution if we had no weapons?

In such a situation, there would probably be some way to access arms. However, the defense of such a revolution would come, in my opinion, by the refusal of the proletariat to produce anything for the bourgeoisie, along with other non-violent methods like blockades, occupations, and the like. Even if the counter-revolutionaries could force their way into factories, they would still need workers to run them.

Kindness

23rd March 2013, 21:58

IMO though gun ban would be an alright piece of legislation if it affected cops as well. Nothing with a gun is scarier than a cop. (Of course, this is unrealistic. Not to mention, recent attempts at gun regulation in the U.S. are dead in the water; last I checked, the only proposal approved being armed guards (FUCKING COPS) in schools...)

Ideally, most cops would not carry guns, but that will never happen under the current system in the USA.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

23rd March 2013, 22:12

While in the long run, I'd like to see guns relegated to safe storage lockers where they could be rarely accessed in situations of particular necessity (eg, capitalist roaders, deer), I don't think, in the short terms, the monopolization of weapons by the bourgeois state is in any way desirable. Again, on the other hand, a well-armed populace has demonstrated itself to be a woefully inadequate guarantor in the face of tyranny. In any case, faced with the ridiculous technological superiority of modern armies, even an assault rifle isn't in and of itself particularly relevant. It's the contours and particularities of the struggle which are definitive, so that the ability, organizationally, to jump police and hack them to bits with machetes in some situations may make "guns" in particular irrelevant.

Tenka

23rd March 2013, 22:25

Skyhilist

23rd March 2013, 22:54

By dual power and general strike, according to the anarcho-syndicalist model.

In such a situation, there would probably be some way to access arms. However, the defense of such a revolution would come, in my opinion, by the refusal of the proletariat to produce anything for the bourgeoisie, along with other non-violent methods like blockades, occupations, and the like. Even if the counter-revolutionaries could force their way into factories, they would still need workers to run them.

You really think that the majority of people are going to refuse to work for the bourgeois if it essentially comes down to "work or I'll kill you"? Hell no. Maybe some rare braver workers would be, and they'd have examples made out of them.

Domela Nieuwenhuis

23rd March 2013, 23:13

How would we defend ourselves from bourgeois attacks when carrying out a revolution if we had no weapons?

I'm sorry, but that's a total bullshit argument. If guns are banned, why do we need to defend ourselfs? No guns , means no guns!

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

23rd March 2013, 23:44

I'm sorry, but that's a total bullshit argument. If guns are banned, why do we need to defend ourselfs? No guns , means no guns!

Who is enforcing that?

slum

23rd March 2013, 23:52

in general i am way more worried about the fact that cops have guns than i am about potentially 'mentally ill' civilians having them

not least because the whole 'crazy people shoot people' narrative is completely disingenuous

look at it this way- gun rights laws will disarm people, but they will never disarm the police, so is this really a useful discussion to be having?

Domela Nieuwenhuis

23rd March 2013, 23:54

Who is enforcing that?

The majority. But that's just me wanting a pacific revolution.
Just end making ammo. Only when everyone lays down their weapon can there be a gunban.

We are in a crazy paradoxal situation. The police holds guns, cause we do. We hold guns, because the police does. Only thing that can result from that is a worstening of the situation.

There are three outcomes. One bloodless where we all lay down our weapons and two where one of both sides gets anihilated completely.
Only the first is a solution.

skitty

24th March 2013, 00:27

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

24th March 2013, 00:52

The majority. But that's just me wanting a pacific revolution.
Just end making ammo. Only when everyone lays down their weapon can there be a gunban.

If everyone voluntarily laid down their arms, a ban would not be necessary. Furthermore, a policy isn't "correct" simply because it's approved of by a majority.

What if a significant minority of (ex-)workers refused to give up their weapons?

We are in a crazy paradoxal situation. The police holds guns, cause we do. We hold guns, because the police does. Only thing that can result from that is a worstening of the situation.

The problem with the police isn't that they are armed, the problem is that they are an organ of bourgeois class rule. This would be the case even if they had no firearms at all.

There are three outcomes. One bloodless where we all lay down our weapons and two where one of both sides gets anihilated completely.
Only the first is a solution.

Wow, I think that's the first instance I've seen of a false trilemma. You do realise that reality is more complicated than social revolution + guns = total slaughter, right?

What makes you think that the ruling classes would ever lay down their arms without the threat of force being used against them?

Skyhilist

24th March 2013, 01:18

I'm sorry, but that's a total bullshit argument. If guns are banned, why do we need to defend ourselfs? No guns , means no guns!

You really think they (the bourgeois) would give up on attacking us even if they had absolutely no guns? Of course not; we'd still have to defend ourselves.

But who do you think would be banning the guns? The ruling class is never going to ban something for everybody that they can use to their advantage.

homegrown terror

24th March 2013, 02:08

firearms (or any successful weapon, really) are a pandora's box. once the gun is invented, it will never be done away with until a more deadly and efficient weapon replaces it. before gunpowder was introduced to europe, the catholic church (the biggest oppressive entity at the time) was fervently restrictive against crossbows, only allowing their use and possession by members of the nobility and their armies (all of which, of course, pledged their support to rome) several rulers placed similar restrictions on swords, condemning to death any commoner found in possession of one, as well as any blacksmith who would forge such "restricted" weapons for unworthy serfs. those in power will ALWAYS try to find more effective ways to kill the disobedient underling, and once one is found, they will always seek to make sure they're the only ones who possess it.

Domela Nieuwenhuis

24th March 2013, 20:49

The problem with the police isn't that they are armed, the problem is that they are an organ of bourgeois class rule. This would be the case even if they had no firearms at all.

You really think they (the bourgeois) would give up on attacking us even if they had absolutely no guns? Of course not; we'd still have to defend ourselves.

I am kind of begining to get annoyed by this police-is-bougeois-army-conspiracy. Are they really that bad? I know a lot of police-officers in Holland are supporters of the left. They are constantly getting screwed over by the liberals (constantly working harder and more for the same wage since early 00's). What makes you think they won't just follow us in case of a revolution?

Wow, I think that's the first instance I've seen of a false trilemma. You do realise that reality is more complicated than social revolution + guns = total slaughter, right?

Do you seriously think if it is to come to a bloody class-war, that one of either sides is going to stop before at least the enemy-movement and/or -spirit is killed? And i know it's not so much a gun-thing, it's a weapon-thing.

What makes you think that the ruling classes would ever lay down their arms without the threat of force being used against them?

But who do you think would be banning the guns? The ruling class is never going to ban something for everybody that they can use to their advantage.
And so we show them we are no better than they are. Who is going to lay down their weapons if the other side isn't? You don't seem to. So a paradox exists.

So, on another note: if we need them to protect us against the armed bourgeoisie, then why the fuck do the workers keep killing each other with those guns?
Fuck you, guns kill. That's what they're made for.

slum

24th March 2013, 21:27

I am kind of begining to get annoyed by this police-is-bougeois-army-conspiracy. Are they really that bad?

honestly in the usa they really, really are.

i can't post links but look up the 'malcolm x grassroots association', who keep a running tally of all the extrajudicial police murders of young black and hispanic men from the last year or so. just as an example.

Domela Nieuwenhuis

25th March 2013, 23:28

honestly in the usa they really, really are.

i can't post links but look up the 'malcolm x grassroots association', who keep a running tally of all the extrajudicial police murders of young black and hispanic men from the last year or so. just as an example.

I know there are a lot of examples. I'm not saying none of 'em are bad. I am just saying not all of them are. It's a few who are fuckin' it up for the rest.

That same thing (the few who make the news in a negative way) is probably the same reason why the Dutch Nationalist party (PVV) has such large support-group.
Some Moroccan-kids are terrorising the neighbourhood, they make the news and Nationalist scream that all Moroccans are evil. Oh, and all other arabs too!

Now, some asshole-cops make the news with a seriously fucked up act. What does the left do? Exactly the same!
Aren't we supposed to ones who are open minded?

Could you at least admit that they might not all be that bad?

o well this is ok I guess

25th March 2013, 23:47

I can think of more Moroccan kids that have helped me out than cops.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

26th March 2013, 00:04

I know there are a lot of examples. I'm not saying none of 'em are bad. I am just saying not all of them are. It's a few who are fuckin' it up for the rest.

Other way around - the vast majority of police are vile racist slime. The media like to trot out the few that aren't in a disgusting bid to paint the whole gang as "community minded". Case in point, there's a Halifax cop who won the shitty liberal paper's "best cop" award five years in a row. I've heard him, personally say some awful shit about "thugs from North Preston" (ie black youth), but the pickings are actually that slim. The cop who has the "decency" to not drop n-bombs is "the good cop". Low bar, friends, loooow bar.

slum

26th March 2013, 04:55

Some Moroccan-kids are terrorising the neighbourhood, they make the news and Nationalist scream that all Moroccans are evil. Oh, and all other arabs too!

Now, some asshole-cops make the news with a seriously fucked up act. What does the left do? Exactly the same!
Aren't we supposed to ones who are open minded?

Could you at least admit that they might not all be that bad?

Firstly, it's not really valid to compare drawing racist conclusions to drawing anti-cop conclusions. Cops are not an oppressed group.

I don't hate all cops personally, if that makes any sense. I'm sure there is a cop or two somewhere that struggles with the cognitive dissonance required to belong to a paramilitary racist organization and still be a decent human being. But they are part of that organization, and they put their boots on the ground to carry out it's will. They do exist to keep already subjugated and potentially revolutionary populations in a state of ghettoized terror. They do exist foremost to protect the private property of those who least need protection, and to harass those who most need it.

It's not just a problem of "some asshole cops". Maybe this is a regional thing, but where I live there is no illusion that the cops serve any purpose other than to harass you and to enforce the will of the state (which is generally quite hostile to you, whether you are poor, non-white, non-english speaking, anti-capitalist, etc).

My admitting that 'all cops aren't that bad' doesn't change the nature of the police as an organization. And it really doesn't help me when some jackboot puts my face in the dirt.

MP5

26th March 2013, 06:03

Well I guess I'm a dissenting voice in that I don't think there should be hard limits on the possession of firearms and other weaponry. My position is that a private individual should be able to possess any weapon that can be operated and maintained by one person, with anything larger falling under the concerns of a proletarian militia. Try telling your right-wing gun-nut friend about my views, I'd be interested to hear his reaction.

Of course, any community would have a direct interest in preventing those with a proven history of unwarranted violence against others from gaining possession of deadly weapons. But I don't think the answer to that is to issue a blanket legislative ban on firearms possession, because that assumes that people are inherently homicidal maniacs without even the benefit of a judicial trial.

Nope you got another dissenting voice here. Bans of guns not only don't work (despite the restriction on automatic assault rifles, auto shotguns and machine guns of any type in Canada it's not hard to lay your hands on either if you know the right people) but why should we as proletarians give up our weapons and let the capitalists have them all? How the hell can you have a revolution without weapons? And yes i know armalites and Ak's are useless against say attack helicopters (unless you had some Armour piercing rounds and frag shells to go with your shotgun) but you have to start somewhere and AR-15's would do well enough against the police anyway. Why leave ourselves completely unarmed i just don't get that mentality.

Also these mass shootings as awful as they are are still a very very rare phenomena. You are much much more likely to get run down tomorrow crossing the road by some stupid drunk then you are to be killed in a mass shooting. Yet we think nothing of doing things far more likely to kill us then any gun ever would.

I do however believe in teaching people how to actually use fire arms so they don't end up on your favorite youtube video for all to laugh at. There is nothing worse then someone with a gun dicksizing about having a .44 mag or a magnum .500 which are totally impractical for any purpose outside of stopping large game. Basically while you are busy fracturing your wrist with a slow firing .500 mag any intruder would have gotten your stereo out the back door long ago. If your paranoid enough to need a gun for home protection a 12 gauge pump or a .380 Walther pistol will do just fine. Unless you live in the African outback and are worried about being charged by a rhino of course :rolleyes: . So using abit of common sense such as getting a gun suited for whatever purpose you need it for which for most people would be a 12 gauge pump action as it can be used for home protection or hunting and has plenty of stopping power and locking your gun cabinet so your niece or nephew don't decide to play around with them while they are visiting you goes a long way towards ensuring your not one of those idiots on a youtube video.

I think the whole American gun culture speaks more of the society itself then the amount of guns there are in America. Where i live it's rare to find a household that does not have atleast a bolt action .303 in it or a single shot .410 but we have one of the lowest murder rates in the country. Despite what some Americans and Canadians think you can get most weapons found legally in America in Canada legally as well. Handguns, certain assault rifles (semi auto only no select fire or auto fire) and high powered sniper rifles are all available here. Sure you can't get a glock-18 machine pistol or a full auto AK-47 but if you actually need one of those guns for anything other then some fun you should really work on your social skills to say the least. Things like 30 shot clips are totally illegal here as well but unless the army invades your house or your a absolute shit shot you certainly aren't going to need one of those.

DROSL

26th March 2013, 13:24

This depends on which side of power you stand. As a leader I would take away all guns. An armed people is a free people.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

26th March 2013, 14:17

I am kind of begining to get annoyed by this police-is-bougeois-army-conspiracy. Are they really that bad?

Yes. Police are fucking scum because that's what the nature of the job demands from those working at it. Becoming hired muscle for the bourgeoisie is like that.

I know a lot of police-officers in Holland are supporters of the left. They are constantly getting screwed over by the liberals (constantly working harder and more for the same wage since early 00's). What makes you think they won't just follow us in case of a revolution?

Because that's not in their job description. Their real one that is, not their "official" one.

Do you seriously think if it is to come to a bloody class-war, that one of either sides is going to stop before at least the enemy-movement and/or -spirit is killed? And i know it's not so much a gun-thing, it's a weapon-thing.

My point is that there are many more factors other than the presence or absence of guns which influences how violent a revolution is. Firearms are not magical totems which turn their bearers into mindless berserkers - social violence has social origins.

And so we show them we are no better than they are. Who is going to lay down their weapons if the other side isn't? You don't seem to. So a paradox exists.

That's not a paradox, that's the definition of a conflict. You know what one of those is, right?

So, on another note: if we need them to protect us against the armed bourgeoisie, then why the fuck do the workers keep killing each other with those guns?

Because workers are human beings, and human beings occasionally murder each other. This has been happening long before anyone conceived of gunpowder, by the way.

Fuck you, guns kill. That's what they're made for.

What's your point? Never heard of killing in self-defence?

Mackenzie_Blanc

26th March 2013, 20:03

When considering gun rights, the question becomes: what kind of guns should be banned and who determines this? Once realizing who is attempting to write the legislation (the corrupt western governments), any sensible gun control becomes a ploy to deprive the working class of self-defense, merely to protect the status of the bourgeoisie.

Domela Nieuwenhuis

26th March 2013, 23:12

Okay, i'm not going to get an off topic "cops"-discussion going.

Just these few pointers from my viewpoint:

1) Any law-enforcement should end. It does not belong in an Anarchist society
2) I don't believe cops in Holland are predominantly racist

Now, let's get back to guns and why they should be banned :grin:

BIXX

26th March 2013, 23:54

Now, let's get back to guns and why they shouldn't be banned :grin:

Fixed.

revscare

29th March 2013, 18:45

I've very opposed to all forms of gun control. I want the working class to be as armed as possible, and I do not think that we should support having the State regulate or disarm them. That being said, I think that seriously mentally ill or unstable people can be an exception to this.

Yes, except it's not the working class who are arming themselves in the United States: it is reactionaries and insane people.

MP5

30th March 2013, 14:45

Yes, except it's not the working class who are arming themselves in the United States: it is reactionaries and insane people.

Well from what i can gather from friends south of the border your right wing reactionary NRA types are the ones buying up all the assault rifles and such fairing they are going to be banned. A guy i know bought a bushmaster AR-15 (this was the AR-15 variant that the Aurora movie theater shooter used i believe) the other year and sold it for 3 times what he had paid for it after the Sandy Hook shootings went down. These nut jobs are apparently so scared that these assault rifles are going to be banned that they are snapping them up at a unprecedented rate hence the 6 month back wait in some places for them now.

The price of these guns are inherently prohibitive to anyone of the working class sadly for the most part. You aren't going to get a AR-15 for a few hundred bucks like you would with a shotgun. Also anyone who is working class and hunts to help put much needed food on the table is not going to buy a armalite anyway as they are useless for hunting anything other then Coyotes. For hunting deer, moose, bear or any other big game a .223 caliber round which is what goes in AR-15's just is not powerful enough. I wouldn't try to bring down a moose with anything less then a .303 and for rabbits and other small game you want a shotgun not a rifle. So if i was to ever buy one i would be just basically buying a very expensive toy that is fun to shoot up old broken down cars and such with.

All the same gun laws are stupid as fuck and like the drug laws are pretty much unenforceable. The working class would have to arm itself during a revolution as there is not really any other way to go about it. Gun laws only serve to give both the manufactures and gun runners a excuse to drive up prices further consolidating power into the hands of the bourgeois. Besides they can always buy assault weapons illegally anyway as they have the cash to pay gun runner prices. So gun laws really only hurt the working class.

Comrade Alex

30th March 2013, 21:16

For crazy gun nuts who desperately need mental care yes no guns for him
But for responsible gun owners the second amendment is untouchable
Think of it this way
A revolution is done with weapons and if the proletariat have no weapons the revolution is done before it even began

SuchianFrog735

1st April 2013, 23:52

I dislike the fact that the gun argument is made to be "gun control or not". Clearly it's not as simple, it's not like people like law enforcement are just going to stop using firearms and neither are law-abiding citizens.

Ideally I would want a society where we wouldn't need to use firearms, but of course we have to address the conditions and prepare accordingly. So I think people should stop limiting themselves to thinking "we must use firearms", but think of them more as contingencies, if you're really going to argue for self-defense.

PC LOAD LETTER

3rd April 2013, 07:30

Kindness

3rd April 2013, 16:22

Hunting is murderous and reactionary. Animals are sentient beings and as such have rights.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

3rd April 2013, 16:44

Hunting is murderous and reactionary. Animals are sentient beings and as such have rights.

Animals have no rights because they are incapable of understanding the concept.

Invader Zim

3rd April 2013, 16:53

It seems to me that access to firearms serves only to hurt the working classes at the present time.

Buck

3rd April 2013, 16:56

If you are a true Marxist then this idea of taking away guns rights should seem ridiculous as this is a policy to amend the superstructure, which has nothing to do with Marxian socialism, as Marxist are for revolution, besides the fact that Marxist want a stateless society. But if you are talking about a sort term easily solveable "solution" to "high" murder rates(right now get are the lowest in America's history) then this is folly. Guns don't kill people, other people do. Besides the fact if you look at nations like Canada of Switzerland, the vast majority own arms and they have some of the lowest murder rates in the world. Also if some one really wanted to kill someone all they would need is basic house hold appliances, or just look on online for how to make a bomb, using basic house hold equipment. So then should we ban or censor the Internet? Maybe we better ban all revolutionary forums to stop violence and those pesky anarchist from killing people. This of course is a ridiculous course of action, as is banning guns. Besides the fact that laws do nothing to stop people from breaking them. But just like any other political reforms to the capitalist superstructure, the avoid the real problem, which is inequality, not wether the law says that someone can or can't do this as they are constantly broken.

Kindness

3rd April 2013, 16:59

Animals have no rights because they are incapable of understanding the concept.

Racists 100 years ago would have said the same thing about their non-white slaves.

The Douche

3rd April 2013, 17:00

I side with Marx on this issue:

Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.

Gun control has been a regular state response to a potentially revolutionary proletariat. Our class must be armed, its only practical.

Kindness

3rd April 2013, 17:02

Animals have no rights because they are incapable of understanding the concept.

Also, young children and mentally disabled people are also incapable of grasping the philosophical concept of rights. If non-human persons have no rights, then neither do children or the mentally disabled (or the intoxicated, the sleeping, etc.).

The Douche

3rd April 2013, 17:03

Lets get something straight, there is no such thing as "rights".

MP5

3rd April 2013, 17:23

Hunting is murderous and reactionary. Animals are sentient beings and as such have rights.

Okay maybe you have a point.

I'll shoot pacifists who refuse to fight instead :D

Racists 100 years ago would have said the same thing about their non-white slaves.

Now that is one of the biggest loads of shit i have heard in abit. You cannot compare humans to animals for starters. Also a slave would have a much better understanding of the wrongs done to them then a fucking deer i think.

Kindness

3rd April 2013, 19:16

Now that is one of the biggest loads of shit i have heard in abit.

I never said that's what I believe (I'm black myself), I said that is what racist whites mistakenly believed years ago. I am a staunch supporter of both human and non-human animal rights.

You cannot compare humans to animals for starters.

Humans are animals. That is a biological fact. Anything else is pure idealism and borders on religion.

Also a slave would have a much better understanding of the wrongs done to them then a fucking deer i think.

Deer are capable of feeling pain, loss, anguish. Whether or not they have the same capacity to suffer as a human, I don't know, but the fact that they have a great capacity for suffering is undeniable.

Rights are not a zero-sum game. One can support both humans and non-human animals without contradiction.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

3rd April 2013, 19:42

One can support both humans and non-human animals without contradiction.

Making an arbitrary line is only a challenge to animal rights nutters. It scarcely surprises me that you are one, though.

Kindness

3rd April 2013, 19:50

Ele'ill

3rd April 2013, 19:52

the issue is assigning rights vs total liberation

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

3rd April 2013, 20:13

Why are supporters of animal rights "nutters?" Reactionaries and conservatives have levied that charge against all supporters of progressive rights over time, and as progress rolled on, suddenly rights supporter's weren't so "nuts." Don't make the same mistake.

I'm personally not a fan of the concept of "rights" at all (do not believe the arbitrary legal recognition is very successful at, in the absence of other social forces, achieving anything whatsoever) but even less so "animal rights". Ergo, nutters is purely a suffix to deride the supporters of this the most preposterous subsets of the "rights-movement", who do indeed take it to its logical conclusion by utterly anthropomorphising animals.

Ele'ill

3rd April 2013, 20:20

utterly anthropomorphising animals.

I see what you did here btw you are pretty clever. Humans are animals and suffer as other animals do. It's not really a stretch to say that animals locked up in cages, born in cages, for mass produced barely edible non-essential food products, is probably torturous as it would be for us as humans.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

3rd April 2013, 20:29

I see what you did here btw you are pretty clever. Humans are animals and suffer as other animals do. It's not really a stretch to say that animals locked up in cages, born in cages, for mass produced barely edible non-essential food products, is probably torturous as it would be for us as humans.

Possibly. We ought not to care, though. If absolutely necessary; engineer them without brains.

Ele'ill

3rd April 2013, 20:30

Possibly. We ought not to care, though. If absolutely necessary; engineer them without brains.

Or just save time and resources and go vegan.

MP5

3rd April 2013, 20:36

I never said that's what I believe (I'm black myself), I said that is what racist whites mistakenly believed years ago. I am a staunch supporter of both human and non-human animal rights.

I never said that's what you believed. Slave owners most likely never put much thought into what kind of suffering they put their slaves through and probably thought even less about what the slaves themselves thought of it.

Humans are animals. That is a biological fact. Anything else is pure idealism and borders on religion.
Okay bad choice of words there. I was making the distinction between humans and actual wild animals.

Deer are capable of feeling pain, loss, anguish. Whether or not they have the same capacity to suffer as a human, I don't know, but the fact that they have a great capacity for suffering is undeniable.

Rights are not a zero-sum game. One can support both humans and non-human animals without contradiction. So if you where starving you would not kill a animal to feed yourself then? Also the whole notion of rights in and of itself is some liberal bourgeois shit and a contradiction in and of itself. Rights boil down to who is holding the gun. The person holding the gun has all the rights the person on the wrong end of it has only the right to do what he is told or die. One can only gain their right to exist free of slavery by killing those enslaving you.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

3rd April 2013, 20:37

Or just save time and resources and go vegan.

Disgusting. But alas, beyond that point, no reasonable discussion to be had and whatnot.

Ele'ill

3rd April 2013, 20:42

well yeah hey we would solve production issues by having people farms born without brains

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

3rd April 2013, 20:46

well yeah hey we would solve production issues by having people farms born without brains

I quite fancy that idea actually, and I have contemplated it in the past. As long as the stock is kept clear of degenerative illnesses that might be spread through the consumption of their meat, it's pretty good.

Ele'ill

3rd April 2013, 21:02

I quite fancy that idea actually, and I have contemplated it in the past. As long as the stock is kept clear of degenerative illnesses that might be spread through the consumption of their meat, it's pretty good.

Are you saying the idea is pretty good or that you've sampled human flesh before?

Kindness

3rd April 2013, 21:10

Possibly. We ought not to care, though.

You're advocating sociopathy. If we "ought not to care," then why don't you take that attitude one step further, apply it to the proletariat, and vigorously support laissez-faire capitalism? Why do you care about the working class?

"Marxist" amoralism leads to the most absurd conclusions. A solid, consistent ethics is the very beating heart of socialism, no, of all worthwhile pursuits. Amoralism is worse than capitalism.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

3rd April 2013, 21:12

Are you saying the idea is pretty good or that you've sampled human flesh before?

Idea is pretty good. I have not had a chance to sample some human flesh, unfortunately.

MP5

3rd April 2013, 21:16

Idea is pretty good. I have not had a chance to sample some human flesh, unfortunately.

Oh your a proper sicky i like you already :grin:

No_Leaders

3rd April 2013, 21:18

I think there's a real connection in the relation of how we treat each other and how we treat animals it seems to me if you treat animals like shit it's just a matter of time before you treat humans like shit. If you wonder why our society treats women like biological machines just built to serve the sexual impulses of men, or why workers are treated like biological machines to serve the fucking financial interests of the rich, just look at the fucking meat/dairy industry and fur industry and you'll see a direct connection.

MP5

3rd April 2013, 21:39

Art Vandelay

3rd April 2013, 21:47

You're advocating sociopathy. If we "ought not to care," then why don't you take that attitude one step further, apply it to the proletariat, and vigorously support laissez-faire capitalism? Why do you care about the working class?

"Marxist" amoralism leads to the most absurd conclusions. A solid, consistent ethics is the very beating heart of socialism, no, of all worthwhile pursuits. Amoralism is worse than capitalism.

What a piece of nonsense, you quite clearly do not properly understand 'Marxist amoralism.'

The 'amoralism' of Lenin, that is, his rejection of supra-class morals, did not hinder him from remaining faithful to one and the same ideal throughout his whole life; from devoting his whole being to the cause of the oppressed from displaying the highest conscientiousness in the sphere of ideas and the highest fearlessness in the sphere of action; from maintaining an attitude untainted by the least superiority to an 'ordinary' worker, to a defenseless woman, to a child. Does it not seem that amoralism in the given case is only a pseudonym for a higher human morality? - Leon Trotsky; Their Morals and Ours.

No_Leaders

3rd April 2013, 21:56

If you havent read the book The Jungle by Upton Sinclair i would recommend doing so. It's more about how we are all cattle to the slaughter under Capitalism then it is about the meat industry. Still stomach churning though. I have not, it's definitely one of those books I've been wanting to read and always forget to pickup. I have read "Making A Killing - The Political Economy of Animal Rights" by Bob Torres. Which i thought was a pretty good read.

SuchianFrog735

3rd April 2013, 22:28

Animals have no rights because they are incapable of understanding the concept.

And what makes you capable of understanding the concept?

SuchianFrog735

3rd April 2013, 22:40

Well of course humans would be distinguished among animals for convenience, but you cannot distinguish them from animals. Perhaps you cannot ascribe them the exact same rights, but there's an acknowledgement

Kindness, I do think morality can be fluid so we cannot necessarily restrict ourselves to our values. On the other hand, there are values which we have found that have been able to ground us so I'll agree with you on that point.

I'm very curious as to why people are even advocating freedom of the proletariat by using this oppression argument. Why should we even care if these people are being oppressed if it all that happens later is another group being oppressed? They're just called "the oppressors" and then killed off? Is that it?

TheRedAnarchist23

3rd April 2013, 22:47

Thinking outlawing guns is bad is an american thing. In the EU guns are outlawed and it is working fine.

Taters

3rd April 2013, 22:55

Thinking outlawing guns is bad is an american thing. In the EU guns are outlawed and it is working fine.

Thing is, we Yanks like our guns. You'll excuse me if I don't want the ruling class to determine whether or not I can own them.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

3rd April 2013, 23:02

Racists 100 years ago would have said the same thing about their non-white slaves.

Nope. Enslaved people (of any skin colour) are still human beings.

Also, young children and mentally disabled people are also incapable of grasping the philosophical concept of rights. If non-human persons have no rights, then neither do children or the mentally disabled (or the intoxicated, the sleeping, etc.).

Again, nope. Mentally challenged and juvenile people are, guess what, still human!

And what makes you capable of understanding the concept?

It's a typical feature of human beings, of which I am one.

SuchianFrog735

3rd April 2013, 23:04

Thing is, we Yanks like our guns. You'll excuse me if I don't want the ruling class to determine whether or not I can own them.

But you'll become dangerous regardless if you have guns! Clearly that's how it works, since guns are just a tool!

@ÑóẊîöŉ

Nope, your point offers no elaboration. Do you even understand other humans?

PC LOAD LETTER

3rd April 2013, 23:11

Hunting is murderous and reactionary. Animals are sentient beings and as such have rights.
OK, so don't hunt, the more deer for me

MP5

3rd April 2013, 23:36

Thinking outlawing guns is bad is an american thing. In the EU guns are outlawed and it is working fine.

I'm a Canadian (well it's on my passport anyway) and i like guns. Plus how the hell can you have a decent revolution without guns? I think we would be defeated from the get go if we could not atleast stand our own against the pigs. Armalites and AK's will suffice for the pigs atleast.

Plus we can't let the yanks have all the fun now can we? :grin:

TheRedAnarchist23

3rd April 2013, 23:54

Plus how the hell can you have a decent revolution without guns?

The social revolution is about deep societal change, not about shooting cops. The revolution starts with self-management, colectivisation, alternative organisations, etc. We will need guns to fight the reaction, but you make it seem like our only goal is killing. Having guns outlawed does not mean we cannot find guns, or that only the cops have access to them, it means you will not usualy find guns in a normal portuguese home. It is like outlawing drugs, you can still find them and use them regularly.

Nevsky

3rd April 2013, 23:55

Some people here make it sound as if class war was about bourgeoisie vs. proletariat fight each other to death with guns, thus, the proletariat needs guns. Class war and the contradictions of capitalism will never be solved by arming the common man, especially if said man isn't even interested in the cause of world revolution. Sorry, but I will always perceive gun-fetishism as a non-progressive, paranoid libertarian type of sentiment.

Don't get me wrong, I am not at all opposed to armed struggle against the capitalist system as an occasional mean for the revolutinary cause but I oppose a general pro-gun sentiment of the left. I can't see how there would be a place for killing machines in future socialist/communist society.

ellipsis

3rd April 2013, 23:59

I love gun.

TheRedAnarchist23

4th April 2013, 00:00

Some people here make it sound as if class war was about bourgeoisie vs. proletariat fight each other to death with guns, thus, the proletariat needs guns. Class war and the contradictions of capitalism will never be solved by arming the common man, especially if said man isn't even interested in the cause of world revolution. Sorry, but I will always perceive gun-fetishism as a non-progressive, paranoid libertarian type of sentiment.

When refering to american libertarians, can you please you the term right-wing libertarians, it makes me sick that they think they are libertarians. I am a true libertarian, and I am left-wing. The right-libertarians have more in common with nazis than with true libertarians.
It is interesting how there is now american libertarianism, which is right-wing, and european libertarianism, which is left-wing. It is probably consequence of the anti-communist tradition of the USA.

Nevsky

4th April 2013, 00:08

When refering to american libertarians, can you please you the term right-wing libertarians, it makes me sick that they think they are libertarians. I am a true libertarian, and I am left-wing. The right-libertarians have more in common with nazis than with true libertarians.
It is interesting how there is now american libertarianism, which is right-wing, and european libertarianism, which is left-wing. It is probably consequence of the anti-communist tradition of the USA.

Indeed, it's ironic how the right wing libertarian propaganda's often ends up sounding the same as fascist, reactionary and authoritarian propaganda. These Ron Paul/Alex Jones conspiracy nutters for example eventually buy into "jewish world-conspiracy" bullshit. Thus, they eventually end up at the extreme opposite of true libertarianism - national socialism.

No_Leaders

4th April 2013, 02:33

Animals have no rights because they are incapable of understanding the concept. I disagree with that statement, just because they have no voice that humans can understand shouldn't mean we can treat them like a commodity to be murdered and tested on, their oppression is our oppression. Workers are oppressed by the rich capitalists and are forced to slave away for peanuts or starve in the streets. That same society is full of sexism where men can dis-empower women, where patriarchy is something that's still prevalent in society. You see the subordination of women who are made to fit the same ol' gender roles. It's domination and coercion used to make "lesser" beings know their role in society, to be used and abused. All of these are fucked up relationships, and all of these forms of oppression are interdependent. The forms of oppression whether racism, sexism, homophobia, animal exploitation, they're all connected. It's all the same bullshit and it's all the same kind of stuff we gotta fight against cause we're taught in our society that it's okay to succeed at the expense of others and that's called capitalism.

Klaatu

4th April 2013, 03:01

Talk all you want about "mentally ill people getting guns." How about the people that are not necessarily mentally ill per se, but are just very pissed off at someone, or very paranoid about "terrorists, foreign invasions, alien invasions, etc" These people are, or have been, ginned-up by fearmongers and hatemongers (e.g. Glen Beck) to hate liberals/fear the government, fear this, fear that... you name it.

Allowing such people to own all the guns they want might be a dangerous thing, for obvious reasons.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with owning a gun for self-defense or hunting, but I think there are a whole lot of folks are out there inhabiting the borderline category, not quite mentally ill, but also on shaky ground, so to speak. So do we just let all of these people buy all the guns they want, knowing full well that these guns are far more likely to be used on others than not? Would a 'background check' uncover such rage/fear/instability?
And if so, then what?

Kindness

4th April 2013, 03:09

Thing is, we Yanks like our guns. You'll excuse me if I don't want the ruling class to determine whether or not I can own them.

If a socialist government wanted to take your guns, would you be in favor of it?

Kindness

4th April 2013, 03:17

Nope. Enslaved people (of any skin colour) are still human beings.

Again, nope. Mentally challenged and juvenile people are, guess what, still human!

It's a typical feature of human beings, of which I am one.

Why does it matter whether or not something is a human being? Why does species membership matter any more than race, gender, or any other arbitrary, irrelevant distinction?

Do you believe there is some kind of metaphysical difference between humans and non-human, sentient animals? If so, how do you justify that belief apart from religion? If you base it on religion, then why do you feel your religious beliefs should be public policy?

Taters

4th April 2013, 03:21

If a socialist government wanted to take your guns, would you be in favor of it?

If a proletarian democracy were to come to the conclusion to ban and/or confiscate guns, I'd disagree, of course, but I'd ultimately bow to that decision.

SuchianFrog735

4th April 2013, 04:27

Klaatu

4th April 2013, 05:59

If a socialist government wanted to take your guns, would you be in favor of it?

Why would they want to? Besides, a well-armed population is not likely to be subject to tyranny (in my opinion, this tyranny would be coming from Corporate Oligarchs and/or Religious Oppression)

What you call "Socialist government" might be better termed "Democracy of the Proletariat." Capitalist Plutocracy is the antithesis of Democracy.

Buy your guns now to defend yourselves from the ever-more powerful World Corporate Empire :scared:

ellipsis

4th April 2013, 06:01

I really don't care about gun rights, if its time to bury them its time to use them. The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots. Get some.

Rottenfruit

4th April 2013, 12:22

I oppose all gun control, gun control is reactionary

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." - Mao Zedong

Rottenfruit

4th April 2013, 12:36

Why would they want to? Besides, a well-armed population is not likely to be subject to tyranny (in my opinion, this tyranny would be coming from Corporate Oligarchs and/or Religious Oppression)

What you call "Socialist government" might be better termed "Democracy of the Proletariat." Capitalist Plutocracy is the antithesis of Democracy.

Buy your guns now to defend yourselves from the ever-more powerful World Corporate Empire :scared:

the Vietcong
the Sandinista
the muhajiden

peasants and mostly just working class farmers defeated the french army and the most powerful army in the world , the vietcong, So dont give me bs that the avarege person cannot defeat a goverment.

There is also no corrleation with guns and crime rate, hondarous has the highest murder rate in the world around 18 times higher then usa yet 14 times lower gun ownership,

Usa army the most powerful army in the world couldnt hold baghed with 200 thousand troops and they requested more, if thats what it takes to hold one major city try to imagine the nightmare for the miltary trying to secure chicago,new york or any of the big cites, they dont have the numbers to do that on a nationwide scale in usa

SuchianFrog735

4th April 2013, 15:43

I oppose all gun control, gun control is reactionary

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." - Mao Zedong

What, do you find the quote inspiring? And really, isn't everything eventually reactionary when we look back?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

4th April 2013, 16:20

I disagree with that statement, just because they have no voice that humans can understand shouldn't mean we can treat them like a commodity to be murdered and tested on, their oppression is our oppression.

You don't know what oppression means. How many dog cultures have been destroyed by domestication?

Workers are oppressed by the rich capitalists and are forced to slave away for peanuts or starve in the streets. That same society is full of sexism where men can dis-empower women, where patriarchy is something that's still prevalent in society. You see the subordination of women who are made to fit the same ol' gender roles. It's domination and coercion used to make "lesser" beings know their role in society, to be used and abused. All of these are fucked up relationships, and all of these forms of oppression are interdependent.

Nope. Animals would still be dying for the sake of humans, even in a communist society where everyone is vegan. Can you begin to work out why?

The forms of oppression whether racism, sexism, homophobia, animal exploitation, they're all connected. It's all the same bullshit and it's all the same kind of stuff we gotta fight against cause we're taught in our society that it's okay to succeed at the expense of others and that's called capitalism.

They are not all the same, that is a gross over-simplification and also ignores the historical roots and social contexts of those phenomena. What you're going on about is hyper-liberalism, nothing revolutionary.

Why does it matter whether or not something is a human being? Why does species membership matter any more than race, gender, or any other arbitrary, irrelevant distinction?

Because species is not an "arbitrary, irrelevant distinction". Try teaching even the smartest dog algebra or how to compose music and you will see what exactly I mean.

Do you believe there is some kind of metaphysical difference between humans and non-human, sentient animals? If so, how do you justify that belief apart from religion? If you base it on religion, then why do you feel your religious beliefs should be public policy?

No religion or metaphysics required, see above. My position is based on directly observable species-traits, which contrary to your assertions are neither arbitrary nor meaningless.

SuchianFrog735

4th April 2013, 18:29

You don't know what oppression means. How many dog cultures have been destroyed by domestication?

What do you see oppression as then? Do you suddenly just stop trying because you see dog abuse as an inevitability?

They are not all the same, that is a gross over-simplification and also ignores the historical roots and social contexts of those phenomena. What you're going on about is hyper-liberalism, nothing revolutionary.

How exactly are they not connected?

Because species is not an "arbitrary, irrelevant distinction". Try teaching even the smartest dog algebra or how to compose music and you will see what exactly I mean.

And this justifies exploitation of them? The point is that differing abilities does not suddenly make them inferior, just as people gradually stopped recognizing other cultures as subhuman.

revscare

4th April 2013, 21:49

So gun laws really only hurt the working class.

That is utterly delusional. Guns are utilized to oppress the working class.

Ele'ill

4th April 2013, 22:07

You don't know what oppression means. How many dog cultures have been destroyed by domestication?

You mean the mass killings of and domestication of wolves?

Nope. Animals would still be dying for the sake of humans, even in a communist society where everyone is vegan. Can you begin to work out why?

no

They are not all the same, that is a gross over-simplification and also ignores the historical roots and social contexts of those phenomena. What you're going on about is hyper-liberalism, nothing revolutionary.

I think hyper liberalism would put 'animal rights' first before a lot of things. Not animal liberation.

Because species is not an "arbitrary, irrelevant distinction". Try teaching even the smartest dog algebra or how to compose music and you will see what exactly I mean.

my roommate's cat built a star gate out of pizza boxes and cutlery

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

4th April 2013, 23:35

What do you see oppression as then? Do you suddenly just stop trying because you see dog abuse as an inevitability?

Oppression has cultural elements. Dogs don't have culture. They can be abused, which I personally find distasteful in the extreme, but not oppressed.

How exactly are they not connected?

Because simply declaring that things which happen in the same society are connected is not good enough. You need to show how that connection is relevant.

And this justifies exploitation of them? The point is that differing abilities does not suddenly make them inferior, just as people gradually stopped recognizing other cultures as subhuman.

When a sheep farmer's fence breaks, he has to spend several tedious hours regathering his sheep. Unlike in a slave revolt, where the slave-holder will be in fear of his life from the fellow humans that he's enslaved. Both the sheep farmer and the slave-holder are exploiters in the literal sense, but in the former case the "exploitation" is more like a miner exploiting a seam of iron ore.

Not similar at all.

You mean the mass killings of and domestication of wolves?

Alright, during domestication, which canine languages were suppressed, which canine religious practices were banned, which canine nations were destroyed?

no

Well for a start, even crop farming kills animals. All that nice land that's being used to grow all those lovely fruits and grains occupies space and consumes resources that other animals could have had.

I think hyper liberalism would put 'animal rights' first before a lot of things. Not animal liberation.

Oh right, I should have been thinking about that ludicrous concept instead of another.

my roommate's cat built a star gate out of pizza boxes and cutlery

I suppose humour is as diverting a way as any for covering for a lack of argumentation...

Red Nightmare

5th April 2013, 00:04

I am against gun control because I feel that it would give the bourgeois state, police, and army even more of a monopoly on violence then they already have and ultimately wouldn't solve any problems.

CaptainJackJohnson

5th April 2013, 00:25

Gun control's only real purpose is to prevent revolution. Although it's hard to see this in modern times, if you trace gun control regulations back to when they started, the earliest gun controls bills were motioned at time when fear of the left meant that the ruling class felt it necessary to prevent a revolution by first registering firearms owners, the denying them to certain people, then prohibiting them altogether, a la much of Europe.

Starship Stormtrooper

5th April 2013, 02:09

I support an armed, militant, and class-conscious proletariat. I see no reason why we should support gun control, especially when such laws will only play into the hands of the bourgeoisie and disproportionately impact poorer people and people of color. Furthermore, those who argue that it will at least disarm reactionaries are flawed in that they think that the law will be applied equally and that reactionaries will not find it much easier to obtain guns than we will (especially in the face of an impending revolution). To see how gun control has been used to disarm revolutionaries, just look at how Reagan used gun control in order to counter the rising militancy of the BPP.

SuchianFrog735

5th April 2013, 05:46

Oppression has cultural elements. Dogs don't have culture. They can be abused, which I personally find distasteful in the extreme, but not oppressed.

Because simply declaring that things which happen in the same society are connected is not good enough. You need to show how that connection is relevant.

And what would satisfy you?

When a sheep farmer's fence breaks, he has to spend several tedious hours regathering his sheep. Unlike in a slave revolt, where the slave-holder will be in fear of his life from the fellow humans that he's enslaved. Both the sheep farmer and the slave-holder are exploiters in the literal sense, but in the former case the "exploitation" is more like a miner exploiting a seam of iron ore.

Not similar at all.

Man, and I thought right wingers were anthropocentric...

How exactly is it like "exploiting a seam of iron ore"? Or better yet, how exactly are you differentiating slavery from tending to sheep? Maybe the sheep will kick your ass.

Invader Zim

5th April 2013, 08:43

Animals have no rights because they are incapable of understanding the concept.

Actually, animals do have rights, because, as a society, we have elected to afford them some in a number of limited capacities. Rights are not determined by the ability to comprehend them, by biological factors, by the command of a deity, or any of the other nonsense frequently said of them - they are social constructs.

LuÃs Henrique

5th April 2013, 14:57

Or just save time and resources and go vegan.

Take your disgusting ideology out of my dinning table, please.

Luís Henrique

l'EnfermÃ©

5th April 2013, 15:23

Actually, animals do have rights, because, as a society, we have elected to afford them some in a number of limited capacities. Rights are not determined by the ability to comprehend them, by biological factors, by the command of a deity, or any of the other nonsense frequently said of them - they are social constructs.
Apply the same logic to fetuses and you end up being anti-choice, no?

Kindness

5th April 2013, 16:03

Take your disgusting ideology out of my dinning table, please.

Luís Henrique

Being vegan is not an ideology, let alone a "disgusting" one, but a moral choice to avoid profiting off the enslavement, torture, and murder of innocent sentient beings.

Kindness

5th April 2013, 16:07

Gun control's only real purpose is to prevent revolution.

No, it isn't. Gun control was enacted to keep citizens safe from gun crimes, not to prevent violent revolution. Even the most heavily armed militants would stand no chance against, say, the US or British militaries.

I'd fear the far right more than the left with guns, though. They are the ones who seem to fetishize violence.

Ele'ill

5th April 2013, 16:23

Oppression has cultural elements. Dogs don't have culture. They can be abused, which I personally find distasteful in the extreme, but not oppressed.

they can be oppressed from doing dog like things. Dogs wanna be dogs- to the best of their abilities.

Alright, during domestication, which canine languages were suppressed, which canine religious practices were banned, which canine nations were destroyed?

It was an attempt at an entire species. All of the above.

Well for a start, even crop farming kills animals. All that nice land that's being used to grow all those lovely fruits and grains occupies space and consumes resources that other animals could have had.

Yeah, I know. Again I am expecting more of a technocratic vision from you unless 'lol industry rulez' is the main bass line to your ideas.

Oh right, I should have been thinking about that ludicrous concept instead of another.

So is the reamp of industrial processes after a revolution going to be the technocats putting christmas lights up on smoke stacks or do you have real ideas other than piggy backing in on what planet killing earth traitor capitalists have done to justify the lifetime spent reading sci fi in mum's cellar

I suppose humour is as diverting a way as any for covering for a lack of argumentation...

No you don't understand she actually did

No_Leaders

5th April 2013, 17:11

You don't know what oppression means. How many dog cultures have been destroyed by domestication?

Nope. Animals would still be dying for the sake of humans, even in a communist society where everyone is vegan. Can you begin to work out why?

They are not all the same, that is a gross over-simplification and also ignores the historical roots and social contexts of those phenomena. What you're going on about is hyper-liberalism, nothing revolutionary.

Because species is not an "arbitrary, irrelevant distinction". Try teaching even the smartest dog algebra or how to compose music and you will see what exactly I mean.

No religion or metaphysics required, see above. My position is based on directly observable species-traits, which contrary to your assertions are neither arbitrary nor meaningless.

Oh okay, so animals being tortured as test subjects for capitalist products, vivisection, throwing helpless animals onto the ground beating them with clubs to break their bones and proceeding to skin them alive for their fur to profit the fur industry, yeah such terror isn't oppression is it? Electrocuting cows/pigs with prods over their body, stomping, kicking, punching, defenseless animals sure isn't oppression. Animals don't want to be confined to test labs, or confined to small cramped inclosures and beat and tormented since they're "lesser" beings to humans, you think that's justifiable simply because they cannot talk? or tell us "stop" or because the local neighbor's dog down the street can't do an algebraic equation or contribute to metaphysics.

The issue is for however many years of your life you're taught it's alright to treat animals as lesser because they're not as "intelligent" as us, or that they're simply there for our entertainment in zoos, or circuses, and they're main reason here is to be slaughtered by humans. Might be easy to goto your local store get a pound of ground beef without thinking of what kind of torment the animal went to cause god knows humans sure love their hamburgers and steaks! Just like it's easy for people to pickup nikes or other useless material possessions without a thought of the workers who worked them, what kind of conditions they were coerced into, whether child labor, or sick or old working 12 hour days for 15 cents a day just to give us this wonderful product!

It is not a gross over-simplification, these things are connected they're various forms of oppression that are different layers of part of the same society us as humans have been living in. It's elitism, it's hierarchical structures and it's dominance. Whether it's the rich dominance over the poor or the few elite over the many, male dominance at home with patriarchy, or white privileged dominance over non-whites, hetero dominance over gay and transgender, it's all ingrained in a capitalist society, it's all a system of coercion. No one is above another, not the local pig because he has a badge and a gun, not the local landlord, not a human being above an animal.

There shouldn't be dominant based relationships between each other nor animals. The hierarchical structures in society says it's okay, but take a look outside your bubble and you might realize there is something incredibly fucked up with a society that thinks it's alright to torture animals and use them as test subjects because their life's are lesser than human lives somehow. I'm sure if we had research facilities where humans were test subjects with tubes being surgically inserted into their face, or having chemicals dripped into their eyes, or chemicals forced into their stomach,injected, products rubbed into their skin, etc. there would be much outcry over such things. Yet humans think it's quite alright to test household cleaners/ingredients, cosmetics, drugs, so on and so on. Hell people like Descartes tried to justify the notion that animals don't feel pain and used vivisection on rabbits and dogs.

It's not a matter of things being like us, it's a matter of them having the capacity for suffering; if there were hypothetically an alien creature totally unrelated to anything on earth, but it was sentient, I would say it was worthy of being treated like we'd treat any other intelligent being. The same should be for animals.

Invader Zim

5th April 2013, 20:46

Apply the same logic to fetuses and you end up being anti-choice, no?

No. I am saying that animals have rights because the human societies in which we live, as in you and I (it is not universal), have assigned them rights. These are enshrined in law, based on the ethic and morals which our societies have evolved to incorporate. For instance, while we do not assign animals the right to life, necessarily, they are assigned the right to a certain standard of existence. Therefore, in the UK, am#nimals have the right to live without being subjected to sadistic cruelty by people. That is a right enshrined in law, because animals have been granted certain welfare rights. This is a statement of fact, not political preference. You might well believe that animals should have no rights, some rights, or the full rights extended to human being - which are all legitimate views. However, as it stands regardless of your views, animals do have a number of legally enshrined rights. And this is indisputable, failure to abide by the laws enshrining those rights can lead to the prosecution of those who transgress them.

The same can be said of fetuses. While you, or I, may disagree with assigning of rights to fetuses after a certain period of development, it does not alter the fact that society as a whole has assigned them rights after that point and employs the full weight of the law to enforce those rights against those who would deprive them. This is an objective fact. What we argue is that the assignment of those rights should be revoked, for various reasons, or that the rights of the fetus' mother should have entire and complete precedence - but this is an opinion as opposed to a fact. If, a majority of society came to accept our arguments, and the law were to change, then those rights would cease to exist because society has ceased to assign them.

Does that suitably clarify my point?

l'EnfermÃ©

5th April 2013, 21:32

No. I am saying that animals have rights because the human societies in which we live, as in you and I (it is not universal), have assigned them rights. These are enshrined in law, based on the ethic and morals which our societies have evolved to incorporate. For instance, while we do not assign animals the right to life, necessarily, they are assigned the right to a certain standard of existence. Therefore, in the UK, am#nimals have the right to live without being subjected to sadistic cruelty by people. That is a right enshrined in law, because animals have been granted certain welfare rights. This is a statement of fact, not political preference. You might well believe that animals should have no rights, some rights, or the full rights extended to human being - which are all legitimate views. However, as it stands regardless of your views, animals do have a number of legally enshrined rights. And this is indisputable, failure to abide by the laws enshrining those rights can lead to the prosecution of those who transgress them.

The same can be said of fetuses. While you, or I, may disagree with assigning of rights to fetuses after a certain period of development, it does not alter the fact that society as a whole has assigned them rights after that point and employs the full weight of the law to enforce those rights against those who would deprive them. This is an objective fact. What we argue is that the assignment of those rights should be revoked, for various reasons, or that the rights of the fetus' mother should have entire and complete precedence - but this is an opinion as opposed to a fact. If, a majority of society came to accept our arguments, and the law were to change, then those rights would cease to exist because society has ceased to assign them.

Does that suitably clarify my point?
Ah now I catch your point, thanks for the clarification comrade. :)

LuÃs Henrique

5th April 2013, 21:32

No. I am saying that animals have rights because the human societies in which we live, as in you and I (it is not universal), have assigned them rights. These are enshrined in law, based on the ethic and morals which our societies have evolved to incorporate. For instance, while we do not assign animals the right to life, necessarily, they are assigned the right to a certain standard of existence. Therefore, in the UK, am#nimals have the right to live without being subjected to sadistic cruelty by people. That is a right enshrined in law, because animals have been granted certain welfare rights. This is a statement of fact, not political preference. You might well believe that animals should have no rights, some rights, or the full rights extended to human being - which are all legitimate views. However, as it stands regardless of your views, animals do have a number of legally enshrined rights. And this is indisputable, failure to abide by the laws enshrining those rights can lead to the prosecution of those who transgress them.

I suppose the law also forbids people from destroyng public or private property in the UK (and that those who fail to abide to such legal provisions can be prosecuted and sentenced). But how does that mean that a house, or a statue, has "rights"?

The same can be said of fetuses. While you, or I, may disagree with assigning of rights to fetuses after a certain period of development, it does not alter the fact that society as a whole has assigned them rights after that point and employs the full weight of the law to enforce those rights against those who would deprive them. This is an objective fact. What we argue is that the assignment of those rights should be revoked, for various reasons, or that the rights of the fetus' mother should have entire and complete precedence - but this is an opinion as opposed to a fact. If, a majority of society came to accept our arguments, and the law were to change, then those rights would cease to exist because society has ceased to assign them.

This would be an excessively juspositivist notion of "rights".

Luís Henrique

Ele'ill

6th April 2013, 16:37

Take your disgusting ideology out of my dinning table, please.

Luís Henrique

It is so weird when people approach vegetables and maybe some compressed soy products like they're watching someone get beheaded. It's fruit and vegetables you (hopefully) eat it with every meal anyways. I think what's disgusting is the agricultural industrial sprawl that is killing this planet's biosphere and in comparison no I don't really give any fucks about your dining table lol.

Invader Zim

6th April 2013, 18:35

But how does that mean that a house, or a statue, has "rights"?

No, it means that people and institutions have been granted property rights.

This would be an excessively juspositivist notion of "rights".

How so? It is again a point of fact. If women have an abortion after the cut off point they run the risk of prosecution, because society has assigned fetuses rights at that point. This is indisputable. If the law were to change, then the rights of those fetuses would also change along with them. This is again indisputable. Modern societies have developed the notion of rights have development because of the expansion of human societies and the development of collective force (i.e. law enforcement officialdom), and collective force is tempered and directed by law (or at least it is supposed to be).

And I think that any other perspective is tenable. If you deny that rights are not the product of human social development subject to constant evolution, then it infers that rights are granted by an 'outside force' (i.e. a deity) or that rights are biological in basis, that we intrinsically have them because of the way in which we are built. Both of these views are ludicrous, ascientific, and easily debunked. Firstly, all concepts and conceptions of rights would be identical where-ever you go. Secondly, they would not be subject to change as time progresses, and clearly they are.

MP5

8th April 2013, 03:11

No, it isn't. Gun control was enacted to keep citizens safe from gun crimes, not to prevent violent revolution. Even the most heavily armed militants would stand no chance against, say, the US or British militaries.

I'd fear the far right more than the left with guns, though. They are the ones who seem to fetishize violence.

Yes because the government always has our best interests in mind :laugh: . Some Anarchist you are right enough :rolleyes:

Well The Provisional IRA and the Irish National Liberation Army where 2 heavily armed Socialist paramilitaries who did stand their own against the British security forces in Northern Ireland which where the British army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary as well as against the Loyalist paramilitaries the British army directly aided such as the Ulster Defense Association, Ulster volunteer force, Loyalist volunteer force, etc or any of the other names for various groups of dirtbags that killed anyone that was even suspected of being Irish. Unlike the republicans they directly targeted civilians but then again so did the RUC and the British army.

In America discriminatory gun laws where put in place against possible threats to the established order. One example which a poster above me pointed out was the Mulford Act of 1967 which prohibited the carrying of loaded firearms in California. This bill actually had the unabashed support of the NRA which just shows how racist and pro-government they where/are. The bill put through by Regan was a reaction to the fact that the Black Panthers had started carrying around loaded pump action shotguns to protect black Communities against attacks by white supremacists and police officers.

They never had more then a few skirmishes with the police or more then about 10,000 members at it's height but this just shows how much a relatively small and very lightly armed Socialist group who are willing to use violence to protect themselves can put the shits up in the police even in the big old bad USA.

Invader Zim

15th April 2013, 00:40

Yes because the government always has our best interests in mind :laugh: . Some Anarchist you are right enough :rolleyes:

Well The Provisional IRA and the Irish National Liberation Army where 2 heavily armed Socialist paramilitaries who did stand their own against the British security forces in Northern Ireland which where the British army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary as well as against the Loyalist paramilitaries the British army directly aided such as the Ulster Defense Association, Ulster volunteer force, Loyalist volunteer force, etc or any of the other names for various groups of dirtbags that killed anyone that was even suspected of being Irish. Unlike the republicans they directly targeted civilians but then again so did the RUC and the British army.

Is the North free of British rule? What is the casualty (captured, wounded, killed) rate between British army henchmen and IRA volunteers? Have the political aims of the IRA been achieved?

Or, basically, has the IRA been pissing in the wind since 1969?

And what has the IRA's myriad of failures got to do with the private ownership of firearms?

X5N

15th April 2013, 00:42

I oppose banning guns. I don't like the way liberals talk about how "only the police and military have guns!"

Synthesis-

15th April 2013, 07:49

I support workers having weapons and denying the bourgeois all forms of their weapons.

Domela Nieuwenhuis

15th April 2013, 09:30

I oppose banning guns. I don't like the way liberals talk about how "only the police and military have guns!"

A ban is a ban. Not some "you can't have none, we can"-bullshit thing.

Rottenfruit

18th April 2013, 02:17

I'm just curious what the general consensus here is on guns. I know a guy. He's a bit of a gun nut and he thinks that communists want to take away his guns. Last I checked most communists were in favour of gun rights.
Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun
Mao

Also why do you trust the police for having guns rather then you? We all know how police never abuse there power. why does gun control not apply to the goverment then?

Art Vandelay

18th April 2013, 14:53

Political power grows out of the [I]barrel of a gun
Mao

Which shows just how anti-Marxist Mao was; political power grows not from the 'barrel of a gun,' but from the proletariat's collective relationship to the means of production.

Domela Nieuwenhuis

18th April 2013, 20:55

This (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/09/boy-6-shot-by-4-year-old-neighbor/2066853/)!!!

That news (and other incidents like it) should be enough to ban guns forever!

Rottenfruit

22nd April 2013, 02:16

This (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/09/boy-6-shot-by-4-year-old-neighbor/2066853/)!!!

That news (and other incidents like it) should be enough to ban guns forever!
Did this site just got invaded by liberals or something? How did the russian revulution of 1917 happend? Oh thats right guns, how did the vietcong beat Usa and the french , well i can give you a hint it was not peace signs and flowers

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

22nd April 2013, 03:11

By the way, has anyone here considered the matter of enforcement?

In a capitalist society, it would be the police and other enforcement organs of the bourgeois state that would be responsible for making sure those "dumb, irresponsible proles" don't get firearms.

But in a communist society?

Oh okay, so animals being tortured as test subjects for capitalist products, vivisection, throwing helpless animals onto the ground beating them with clubs to break their bones and proceeding to skin them alive for their fur to profit the fur industry, yeah such terror isn't oppression is it? Electrocuting cows/pigs with prods over their body, stomping, kicking, punching, defenseless animals sure isn't oppression.

Hurting and destroying animals for no socially beneficial purpose can be cruel, callous, and quite possibly indicative of a dangerous personality, but it is not oppressive. Non-human animals can most certainly feel pain but none have the ability to place themselves in a wider social context with regards to their relationship with humans.

Animals don't want to be confined to test labs, or confined to small cramped inclosures and beat and tormented since they're "lesser" beings to humans, you think that's justifiable simply because they cannot talk? or tell us "stop" or because the local neighbor's dog down the street can't do an algebraic equation or contribute to metaphysics.

I agree that putting animals through hell just for shits and giggles is not something we should be encouraging, But other than that?

The issue is for however many years of your life you're taught it's alright to treat animals as lesser because they're not as "intelligent" as us, or that they're simply there for our entertainment in zoos, or circuses, and they're main reason here is to be slaughtered by humans. Might be easy to goto your local store get a pound of ground beef without thinking of what kind of torment the animal went to cause god knows humans sure love their hamburgers and steaks! Just like it's easy for people to pickup nikes or other useless material possessions without a thought of the workers who worked them, what kind of conditions they were coerced into, whether child labor, or sick or old working 12 hour days for 15 cents a day just to give us this wonderful product!

As far as I'm concerned the fact that the sweatshop worker likely has dreams and aspirations of their own, rather than just a desire to avoid pain in favour of comfort, makes them more important to my consideration than a cow that's already been long minced. I'd like the cow not to have suffered any more than was absolutely necessary to produce the mince, but I don't see what difference abstaining would do.

It is not a gross over-simplification, these things are connected they're various forms of oppression that are different layers of part of the same society us as humans have been living in. It's elitism, it's hierarchical structures and it's dominance. Whether it's the rich dominance over the poor or the few elite over the many, male dominance at home with patriarchy, or white privileged dominance over non-whites, hetero dominance over gay and transgender, it's all ingrained in a capitalist society, it's all a system of coercion. No one is above another, not the local pig because he has a badge and a gun, not the local landlord, not a human being above an animal.

It's not the same. Rich-poor divides are between humans. Patriarchy is something humans do to each other. Heterosexism is found in human societies and nowhere else. There's no connection between those things and the use of non-human animals for various purposes, a phenomenon which pre-dates class society.

There shouldn't be dominant based relationships between each other nor animals. The hierarchical structures in society says it's okay, but take a look outside your bubble and you might realize there is something incredibly fucked up with a society that thinks it's alright to torture animals and use them as test subjects because their life's are lesser than human lives somehow.

At some point new drugs and surgical techniques have to be tested on an actual living organism. We need to make sure that such things don't have too many unexpected consequences for patients, and going straight to human tests would defeat the purpose of that, as well as being unethical.

I'm sure if we had research facilities where humans were test subjects with tubes being surgically inserted into their face, or having chemicals dripped into their eyes, or chemicals forced into their stomach,injected, products rubbed into their skin, etc. there would be much outcry over such things. Yet humans think it's quite alright to test household cleaners/ingredients, cosmetics, drugs, so on and so on. Hell people like Descartes tried to justify the notion that animals don't feel pain and used vivisection on rabbits and dogs.

So what's your alternative? Not test things and then say "oops sorry!" when it turns out that an un-tested chemical or procedure produces a lethal interaction or allergic reaction?

It's not a matter of things being like us, it's a matter of them having the capacity for suffering; if there were hypothetically an alien creature totally unrelated to anything on earth, but it was sentient, I would say it was worthy of being treated like we'd treat any other intelligent being. The same should be for animals.

An alien could be sapient, which is the deciding factor. But most non-human animals, while sentient, are not sapient.

Domela Nieuwenhuis

22nd April 2013, 04:48

Did this site just got invaded by liberals or something? How did the russian revulution of 1917 happend? Oh thats right guns, how did the vietcong beat Usa and the french , well i can give you a hint it was not peace signs and flowers

Yeah, because that shit ended well! Oh wait! It ended up in violent dictatures with people starving and all the money going to guns and cannons.

Yeah, great point.

Rottenfruit

22nd April 2013, 11:21

Yeah, because that shit ended well! Oh wait! It ended up in violent dictatures with people starving and all the money going to guns and cannons.

Yeah, great point.
What what in earth are you doing on revleft if you disagree with the Russian revolution of 1917?

Domela Nieuwenhuis

22nd April 2013, 21:25

What what in earth are you doing on revleft if you disagree with the Russian revolution of 1917?

Non Marxist Anarchist/pascifist. Still into revolution though.

Do you honestly think you can solve everything with violence?
As i mentioned before, innocent kids are getting hurt, or even worse! So yes, i hate guns.

Anyway, if you are in need of violence to defeat an uprising of workers unhappy with your vanguard, how fit is your vanguard to actually support the workers?
That's why there are so many accounts of famine and unrest from the USSR.

Revolution is one thing, keeping it stable is a whole other thing.

Pascifism and majority. Not violence man, pascifism and majority.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

23rd April 2013, 13:43

Non Marxist Anarchist/pascifist. Still into revolution though.

How do you expect a revolution to work without violence at some point? You're not honestly expecting the ruling classes to give up without a fight?

Do you honestly think you can solve everything with violence?

No, but it is just as ridiculous to expect the problem of transitioning from a capitalist class society to a communist classless society to be solved without any violence at all. For a start, the ruling classes are most certainly not pacifists.

As i mentioned before, innocent kids are getting hurt, or even worse! So yes, i hate guns.

Innocent kids get hurt by scissors, even though scissors aren't weapons. Do you hate scissors?

Anyway, if you are in need of violence to defeat an uprising of workers unhappy with your vanguard, how fit is your vanguard to actually support the workers?
That's why there are so many accounts of famine and unrest from the USSR.

It's more complicated than that, I suspect.

Revolution is one thing, keeping it stable is a whole other thing.

Pascifism and majority. Not violence man, pascifism and majority.

Except that thankfully the majority aren't stupid or suicidal enough to go with the idea of pacifism.

Domela Nieuwenhuis

25th April 2013, 21:26

Innocent kids get hurt by scissors, even though scissors aren't weapons. Do you hate scissors?

Scissors are made for cutting paper or cloth, guns are made for killing and wounding. Seems like a huge difference to me.
How much kids are killed every year by scissors? I bet not nearly as much as by guns!

Except that thankfully the majority aren't stupid or suicidal enough to go with the idea of pacifism.

That is the basis for the violence-paradox. We want to be able to use violence because they do too. The only outcome is a lot of deaths.
When you want to use violence because they do, that will feed their reason to use it more, so you want to be able to use even more violence, so they in turn...etc. etc.

See where that is headed!?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

27th April 2013, 20:09

Scissors are made for cutting paper or cloth, guns are made for killing and wounding. Seems like a huge difference to me.

Not really. They're both tools, just for different purposes.

How much kids are killed every year by scissors? I bet not nearly as much as by guns!

If you really think the numbers matter, then more could be done by banning/restricting private motor vehicle ownership. But this isn't really about saving kids' lives, this is about some kind of negative fetish over firearms.

That is the basis for the violence-paradox. We want to be able to use violence because they do too. The only outcome is a lot of deaths.

No, it's the instability of pacifism. If everyone became pacifist, then the first person to break the rules and use violence has a massive advantage over everyone else. Especially if everyone else (or near enough) has gone and done something very stupid indeed like getting rid of all their weapons.

When you want to use violence because they do, that will feed their reason to use it more, so you want to be able to use even more violence, so they in turn...etc. etc.

See where that is headed!?

Whereas if one side refrains from using violence, the other side has a massive advantage if they ever do decide to use violence.

That's why pacifism is an utterly stupid notion. All it takes is one person or one group of individuals willing to break the "rules" of pacifism and everyone is back at square one.

I think this is because pacifism considers violence to be universally negative without considering the social and material contexts in which it manifests.