What some socialists actually think on gun rights

T

tipoc

New member
As a card carrying socialist (well, the card says IWW but I say close enough) and member of the SAF I can thank you for posting that link. More people need to realize that socialism doesn't automatically mean nanny state facist any more than gun ownership automatically means paranoid redneck.

Of course, The Millitant blaiming the capitalists for the shooting is as stuipid as blaming guns, video games, Marylin Manson &c, but they are far from the only organization to attempt to use an unrelated issue to push their agenda.
 
Of course, The Millitant blaiming the capitalists for the shooting is as stuipid as blaming guns, video games, Marylin Manson &c,
Click to expand...

Actually as I read it the only thing The Militant directly says about why the shootings occurred was that Lanza was mentally ill. They don't attempt to assess why he did it other than that.

The point of the article is not about the shootings so much as the reactionary response to them from conservatives and liberals.

The point they make about capitalism being a violent system across the board is valid. When the President gets dewy eyed about the over 3,000 "victims of gun violence" in the U.S. annually but has nothing to say about the over 4,000 deaths on the job annually in the U.S. the hypocrisy level increases some. To cite one example.

tipoc
 
I have never found socialists to be clear and logical thinkers.
Click to expand...

Agree... Robert Reich comes the closest to being a true-believer-leftist who actually forms complete sentences and actually makes a logical point.
 
Make them go into mental meltdown by getting them to say you have the right to own a gun, then suggest what happens if people start to use NIB Glock 19s as a medium of exchange. . . .
 
Robert Reich? Formerly in the Clinton cabinet and a Professor of whatever he was a professor of?

Kinda run of the mill liberal ain't he?

If he's a socialist he's of the middle of the road European Social Democrat type. But then most who call themselves socialists are of that type.

tipoc
 
Dr Big Bird:
The communist article loves democracy in its purest form. The Bolshevik revolution was democracy, was it not?
Click to expand...

Is any revolution really democratic? I don't have the background to speak in this area, but I'm curious.

IIRC the American revolution was actually undertaken by about 3% of the population (fighting men + supporters + other meaningful participants). That sounds like an elite class rather than a democratic majority, although I don't know that the other 97% were opposed to revolution rather than just too afraid to meaningfully participate.

tipoc:
The point they make about capitalism being a violent system across the board is valid.
Click to expand...

I didn't see that point made in the linked article -- can you cite it for me? If made I would certainly take issue with anyone suggesting that Capitalism is statistically more violent than socialism or any other form of rule.
 
I am a bit surprised to see the pros and cons of socialism being debated on a gun sight. Regardless, socialism goes against basic human nature and will always fail. Capitalism is the only system that I am aware of that allows opportunity for people to rise and fall upon there own merit.
 
An ally is an ally, if I am locked in a battle with the Nazis and the Russians are fighting the Nazis as well, I'll consider the Russians an ally. I may have some beef with several things about the Russians, I'll deal with that after the Axis has been brought to its knees.

I think the OP's point was that we have some friends (on this issue) where we may not expect them.
 
Well, I have a pretty strong understanding.

Communism,Socialism,Capitalism = economic model

Democracy, Monarchy, Oligarchy, Authoritarian = power model

Any economic model can be used along with any power model.

Not sure what you were trying to point out with that statement. I imagine you are assuming because many of these posters do not agree with socialism that means they assume it is always undemocratic.

Enough of this. I think the OP had a good point, it was made and I'll not waste any more time on this elementary political debate.
 
The reason I linked to the two articles from The Militant was so that folks could read a different take on the fight to defend the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment. One that I think is particularly honest and valuable.

They are so far the only folks saying what is obvious, to me at least. Both political parties have been keen of late in leading attacks on our individual constitutional rights. From the "stop and frisk" laws in N.Y. supported by both parties in various states and guises (the "show me your papers" laws in Alabama and Arizona are the same thing wearing a different jacket), to the erosion of our rights to a fair trial, to the Obama administrations decision that it can kill American citizens overseas without charges being brought or a trial being held, and the list could go on. These attacks whittle away at the room people have to practice politics and are a threat to the exercise of our rights. Including the second amendment.

At the same time we see an increase in the advocacy of both vigilantism and greater power being given to the police apparatus by leaders of both parties.

So I think the articles make interesting reading and I welcome their viewpoint. But to debate socialism vs. capitalism in the abstract seems pointless to me in the face of a real discussion of the way forward that can unite folks in defense of the Bill of Rights.

tipoc
 
I may have some beef with several things about the Russians, I'll deal with that after the Axis has been brought to its knees.
Click to expand...
I don't know. That didn't work out so well in the long run. Ask the Poles, the Hungarians, or the Czechs.

That said, socialism these days is much like anarchy (and to some extent, libertarianism) in that it's a doctrine of critique rather than governance. It's an interesting philosophical difference, but not one that would cause me to reject help on a specific issue. Heck, they might be changing some minds for the better.

However, to imply that we should take anyone who wants to ally with us could be unwise. We've at times had white supremacists who've wanted to lump themselves in with the cause, and I've often argued that associating with them is counter-productive.
 
IIRC the American revolution was actually undertaken by about 3% of the population (fighting men + supporters + other meaningful participants). That sounds like an elite class rather than a democratic majority, although I don't know that the other 97% were opposed to revolution rather than just too afraid to meaningfully participate.
Click to expand...


From my studies (history degree with a focus on American Military), the American War for Indepence participation was pretty equal. 1/3 of "Americans" were for the war, 1/3 were loyal to the crown, and a 1/3 wanted nothing to do with the war and just wanted to live their lives. Of course these are approximations but either way your right, it was not very democratic.


I agree with Tom though. What is good now may not be beneficial in the future (see Cold War). I'm not saying that socialism is wrong and capitalism is right, but its about media twists and public perception. It would be really hard to argue our cause when we have the media claiming that because of our support from white supremesists and socialists or anti-government groups that all gun owners are Neo-Nazis who want to kill anyone who is not white and who praise the actions of Hitler and want to overthrow the government. That is a lot of hate and fear that would be projected for a fight for collapsible butt stocks and 30 rd magazines
 
Is any revolution really democratic? I don't have the background to speak in this area, but I'm curious.

IIRC the American revolution was actually undertaken by about 3% of the population (fighting men + supporters + other meaningful participants). That sounds like an elite class rather than a democratic majority, although I don't know that the other 97% were opposed to revolution rather than just too afraid to meaningfully participate.
Click to expand...
It's moreso rhetorical. The revolution was instigated by "the majority" who was the "lower class and poor". By the Bolshevik's leaders own portrayals, it was what "the majority of russians wanted". Democracy is the majority subjugating the minority. When Obama says "the majority of Americans" want "gun control", an "assault weapons ban", or "to raise taxes on the rich," he is actually using something I call packaging.
The concept of democracy has a very benevolent stigma to the average american because the system by default gives people the illusion that they are making their own decisions. They believe that America is a democracy and since it is American, it is good. When Obama, Bolsheviks, or Quakers use the "majority" rhetoric they are appealing to the same rationale of a pure democracy. Since there is a grave misunderstanding about the concept of a democracy in our country, it gives a socially comforting appeal when a directive, law, or statement is based upon Ad Populum.

Communism,Socialism,Capitalism = economic model

Democracy, Monarchy, Oligarchy, Authoritarian = power model

Any economic model can be used along with any power model.
Click to expand...
I disagree that a Communist society can exist under democracy or a capitalist society can exist under a monarchy. But that's moreso in function, not theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top