Results 21 to 40 of 324
The only issue with that being the fact that the entire working class does not always side with those looking to represent their best interests. They are not always capable of deciding where their allegiances lie in the form of deciding who to shoot at with their personal armaments. It is not as if an armed working class is going to shape the course of a revolution in any sort of significant way. In nations like the US, it would probably do the left much more harm than good if a situation of open disorder were to arise. In regards to this question, it would appear that you have a rather blunt understanding of the working class and its composition.
They're not allowed to use the weapons provided for the specific purpose of maintaining the militia, no. But private gun ownership is widespread in the country.
Regardless, what the example shows is that the mere presence of a lot of weaponry does not mean that people will go on rampages. Israel has fairly widespread gun ownership, too, with low crime...Jerusalem is safer than New York City, which is one of the safer large cities in the USA. The USA has higher violent crime rates because there's a pervasive culture of violence here that transcends guns and gun ownership.
"Win, lose or draw...long as you squabble and you get down, that's gangsta."
brb gotta go lovingly caress my AR-15
"Win, lose or draw...long as you squabble and you get down, that's gangsta."
The problem is the working-class can be right-wing and very violent toward the left. If the proletariat is divided then gun ownership will work against it's interests and possibly end up in a bloodbath while the bourgeoisie spectate.
Because I trust my .357 more than I could ever trust a crooked politician.
If the uprising is based on who has the most firepower then we're doomed anyway. The military has submarines that can obliterate entire cities with complete invulnerability.
Luckily I don't view revolution in that manner.
"Win, lose or draw...long as you squabble and you get down, that's gangsta."
Put it this way, a revolution is most likely to occur in a poor country. Even if the workers were allowed to buy arms they wouldn't have enough money to do so in a quantity that made a difference to the outcome anyway. The military will always be stronger, and an armed proletariat only gives them a reason to fire back and kick the shit out the workers. That allied to right winged workers only fucks things up. Remember, America isn't going to be the country having a revolution any time soon. Plus the Soviet Union is gone so bye-bye to thousands of armed revolutionary peasants. They were the main suppliers to Guerrillas around the world.
Yes, this is why revolution is primarily waged on a social terrain, as opposed to a military one (which, even if somehow successfully completed by revolutionaries, would only lead into the same dynamics of power & control that initiated the revolt in the first place. Barracks communism.)
And how well did that work out for the cause of international socialism? The same weapons they shipped out to Africa were later used by child soldiers.
"Win, lose or draw...long as you squabble and you get down, that's gangsta."
When the guns are banned in certain countries, the country is one step closer to becoming a Fascist police state. I own a AK47 and an UZI and some WWII rifles that my grandfather had (Of course I have them legally), but I hold them very dear to my heart. But people think that gun-owners are violent, and I will tell you this: I have never been to jail, I have never committed a crime, and I will never commit a crime. When people hear that I am a Revolutionary Communist, they think of armed overthrow of the government. When I say I'm revolutionary I mean that I agitate, organize, and educate.
MARX-ENGELS-LENIN-STALIN
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not want our enemies to have guns, so why should we let them have ideas?" - Joseph Stalin
"Here, in the Soviet Union, I am not a Negro but a human being for the first time in my life ... I walk in full human dignity." - Paul RobesonSOLIDARITY
FREEDOM
That is essentially the point being made though, that an armed populace only makes the social aspect of the revolution more difficult to attain, thus it is undesirable.
You would fit right in at a tea party rally with that rhetoric. Musing about the government taking away your guns and how such a terrible act would be tantamount to fascism.
Ironic how the last few users that support gun laws actually own guns. Care to think outside the box for a minute or two?
So the U.S.A. is a Libertarian Socialist state, because guns aren't banned.
I simply don't think that's the case at all, though. I don't think that the simple quantity of weapons in a given area has anything to do with the conditions necessary for a social revolution, tbh.
"Win, lose or draw...long as you squabble and you get down, that's gangsta."
Oh and let's not forget that if there's an armed revolution in some poor country, the bourgeois media in the rest of the world will condemn the workers as "armed, violent, chaotic and dangerous", effectively acting as counter-revolutionary in the International perspective.
The quantity of weapons in a region has no notable effect on the economic preconditions necessary for revolution and I never said anything to the contrary. I was simply saying that when the quantity of weapons is increased that it has no effect on the circumstances demanded of revolution, and that in some situations it can actually be more of a potential threat to a proper marxist revolution in the implementation stage than anything else.
I know a reactionary that says that the US government will never be able to "take over" because we are allowed to carry firearms. I want to know what the 50 untrained people in his town, ages 18-60, with 9mm to assault rifles, are going to do against a battalion of Marines with air and artillery support, besides get annihilated. Fucking idiots.
The devaluation of the human world grows in direct proportion to the increase in value of the world of things. -Karl Marx
Of more value is that you understand and learn to not support your security on your clothes because if you lose everything then what are you left with if all you have is only decorations? What a shame. It surely sounds sad like a condemnation that you base your life on only material shit. Nothing special can be purchased. As the little prince says, “What is essential is invisible to the eye.” - Cultura Profetica [translated by me]
What frightens me the most is even if the armed revolution was successful then what would stop authoritarian and libertarian socialists from killing each-other?
So Paris 1968 didn't happen and neither did Detroit 1967? The latter that only failed because revolutionary Vietnam vets that took up arms against the National Guard were alienated and didn't have a wide enough base amount workers. If the Vietnam vets in Detroit had the proletariat united behind odds are it would have caused huge splits in the US Army.
It's a very complicated issue.
1) In terms of having a consistent argument, you'd need to come up with a way to draw a bright line at guns, and not allow more powerful weapons
1a) Unless you take it to the absolute extreme, and say that you'd be willing to let an individual own a nuclear bomb if he/she had the means to acquire one.
2) Do they help? For some individuals they might. The sad reality is that whether increased access to guns will hurt or help you, probably depends on geography.
3) Rights? This concept is metaphysical and tends to blur into some confused invocation of property "rights"
4) Overthrow of the government. I find this least convincing. The overthrow of a powerful state seems unlikely to come from violent insurrection.
There are tons of other variables to consider. If you live in a society particularly in danger of invasion of occupation, increased gun ownership might make that a less attractive idea to the potential aggressors against your society, via threat of prolonged guerilla war, etc.
-Failed states where not even the basic bourgeoisie autocorrect ("safety") mechanisms work.
-Personal vendettas some might have against you.
-Being Omar Little.
ETC. There are no easy answers.
