Gun rights?

[Luís Henrique]

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]

... 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]

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...1872/09/08.htm

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

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...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)

[Luís Henrique]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

[NGNM85]

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]

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]

Guns?

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

[Luís Henrique]

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

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.