Should Authoritarian Socialists be Pro Gun

[Soviet Tankistan]

Guns are important to revolution and leftists as a whole. Many authoritarian socialists like guns and own them. I'm not saying that guns shouldn't be deregulated. I'm saying that authoritarian socialists should own guns and allow them. What do you think? Should they be pro guns.

[Ors Might]

Guns are important to revolution and leftists as a whole. Many authoritarian socialists like guns and own them. I'm not saying that guns shouldn't be deregulated. I'm saying that authoritarian socialists should own guns and allow them. What do you think? Should they be pro guns.

Probably. Pretty hard to start a worker based revolution if the workers aren’t armed, y’know?

Not too stoked about authoritarians stocking up on guns but hey, rights for people you don’t like and all that.

[Soviet Tankistan]

Guns are important to revolution and leftists as a whole. Many authoritarian socialists like guns and own them. I'm not saying that guns shouldn't be deregulated. I'm saying that authoritarian socialists should own guns and allow them. What do you think? Should they be pro guns.

Probably. Pretty hard to start a worker based revolution if the workers aren’t armed, y’know?

Not too stoked about authoritarians stocking up on guns but hey, rights for people you don’t like and all that.

Authoritarians already stock up on guns. I assume you are American? If so, you have a large and very armed right wing authoritarian party so arming their left wing equivalents shouldn’t be much of a concern.

[Tetradimensional Overworld]

Pro-gun at first, and then anti-gun to keep capitalists from remaking the Old Order.

[Ifreann]

Shovel AKs for everyone!

[Ors Might]

Probably. Pretty hard to start a worker based revolution if the workers aren’t armed, y’know?

Not too stoked about authoritarians stocking up on guns but hey, rights for people you don’t like and all that.

Authoritarians already stock up on guns. I assume you are American? If so, you have a large and very armed right wing authoritarian party so arming their left wing equivalents shouldn’t be much of a concern.

It’s less of a concern, per se, so much as the realization that the imminent conflict will be a violent cavalcade of clown fuckery.

[Soviet Tankistan]

Pro-gun at first, and then anti-gun to keep capitalists from remaking the Old Order.

That doesn’t make sense. A system where guns are regulated as to keep them out of the hands of terrorists is needed. But the only reason to have a revolution is to serve the people. If the people are dissatisfied enough they are able to overthrow the government, they shouldn’t have another uprising from the ground up. If the capitalists are strong enough to fight back and the workers too weak, then you have betrayed the revolution you were a part of. Leaders like Stalin could have easily had guns for the average person because he was very popular and well liked. I think that was more of an issue that guns weren’t ever allowed in most countries.

[Soviet Tankistan]

Shovel AKs for everyone!

The shovels and AKs are separate.

[Soviet Tankistan]

Authoritarians already stock up on guns. I assume you are American? If so, you have a large and very armed right wing authoritarian party so arming their left wing equivalents shouldn’t be much of a concern.

It’s less of a concern, per se, so much as the realization that the imminent conflict will be a violent cavalcade of clown fuckery.

It always is. When I talk about a socialist revolution, I mean it as comparable to the guns are to be used against a totalitarian government only. It hasn’t been bad enough yet.

[Tetradimensional Overworld]

Pro-gun at first, and then anti-gun to keep capitalists from remaking the Old Order.

That doesn’t make sense. A system where guns are regulated as to keep them out of the hands of terrorists is needed. But the only reason to have a revolution is to serve the people. If the people are dissatisfied enough they are able to overthrow the government, they shouldn’t have another uprising from the ground up. If the capitalists are strong enough to fight back and the workers too weak, then you have betrayed the revolution you were a part of. Leaders like Stalin could have easily had guns for the average person because he was very popular and well liked. I think that was more of an issue that guns weren’t ever allowed in most countries.

If Stalin was pro-gun, he could've pushed the Nazis out from the U.S.S.R. more easily.

[Ifreann]

Shovel AKs for everyone!

The shovels and AKs are separate.

Hello, KGB? I found an enemy of the workers.

[Soviet Tankistan]

That doesn’t make sense. A system where guns are regulated as to keep them out of the hands of terrorists is needed. But the only reason to have a revolution is to serve the people. If the people are dissatisfied enough they are able to overthrow the government, they shouldn’t have another uprising from the ground up. If the capitalists are strong enough to fight back and the workers too weak, then you have betrayed the revolution you were a part of. Leaders like Stalin could have easily had guns for the average person because he was very popular and well liked. I think that was more of an issue that guns weren’t ever allowed in most countries.

If Stalin was pro-gun, he could've pushed the Nazis out from the U.S.S.R. more easily.

Yes. The Nazis had easier victories at first. They should have given civilians a little training and let them fight. A few fought, but with training they may have been more confident.

[Soviet Tankistan]

The shovels and AKs are separate.

Hello, KGB? I found an enemy of the workers.

What? Putting a shovel on an AK is stupid.

[Ifreann]

That doesn’t make sense. A system where guns are regulated as to keep them out of the hands of terrorists is needed. But the only reason to have a revolution is to serve the people. If the people are dissatisfied enough they are able to overthrow the government, they shouldn’t have another uprising from the ground up. If the capitalists are strong enough to fight back and the workers too weak, then you have betrayed the revolution you were a part of. Leaders like Stalin could have easily had guns for the average person because he was very popular and well liked. I think that was more of an issue that guns weren’t ever allowed in most countries.

If Stalin was pro-gun, he could've pushed the Nazis out from the U.S.S.R. more easily.

Yes, because procuring arms for the Red Army was simply a matter of Stalin's personal opinion on guns. If he had wanted guns then they would have just appeared.

[Ors Might]

It’s less of a concern, per se, so much as the realization that the imminent conflict will be a violent cavalcade of clown fuckery.

It always is. When I talk about a socialist revolution, I mean it as comparable to the guns are to be used against a totalitarian government only. It hasn’t been bad enough yet.

Eh. The weakness of most revolutionary types is their tendency to focus more on the violent aspect of the revolution rather than the cultural one. It just comes as a given to most of them that the people will eventually see things their way, starting the revolt.

[Ifreann]

Hello, KGB? I found an enemy of the workers.

What? Putting a shovel on an AK is stupid.

You don't put a shovel on an AK, you make the AK from a shovel.

[The New California Republic]

Pro-gun at first, and then anti-gun to keep capitalists from remaking the Old Order.

That doesn't make much sense, since arming the proletariat and keeping them armed should prevent such an occurrence anyway...

[Soviet Tankistan]

If Stalin was pro-gun, he could've pushed the Nazis out from the U.S.S.R. more easily.

Yes, because procuring arms for the Red Army was simply a matter of Stalin's personal opinion on guns. If he had wanted guns then they would have just appeared.

If the Soviets were better armed, the Nazis would be slowed and annoyed by them fighting until the army came.

[Ors Might]

If Stalin was pro-gun, he could've pushed the Nazis out from the U.S.S.R. more easily.

Yes, because procuring arms for the Red Army was simply a matter of Stalin's personal opinion on guns. If he had wanted guns then they would have just appeared.

Are you implying that Comrade Stalin didn’t shit AKs and spit ammunition?

[North German Realm]

The main view is that of-bloody-fucking-course socialists in general should be pro-gun. A core part of socialism as an umbrella of ideologies (especially when you inch towards Marxian or Krotopkin-esque Communism) is that the default state of workers while under a non-socialist system is necessarily "oppressed and suppressed". Marxian Communism in particular is pretty open about the "if you disarm the workers, you're leaving them at the hands of the Capitalist Class, and that's -if you still haven't got the hint- bad."

Now, Authoritarian Socialists in particular, since they -decidedly, as they are authoritarian- also support the suppression of workers, but by the state rather than by their private employers. So, in their particular case, they are totally pro gun as long as they aren't in charge, at which point guns should not be found at the hands of the workers, but the State's Soldiers. Obviously, exceptions do apply (Socialist Albania had a uniquely pro-gun approach to the "should workers own guns under a socialist state?" question despite its authoritarianism)

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

A better question would be; should authoritarian socialists be pro-authoritarianism? The answer is no.

[Soviet Tankistan]

A better question would be; should authoritarian socialists be pro-authoritarianism? The answer is no.

Should liberals be liberals? The answer is no.

[The New California Republic]

Hello, KGB? I found an enemy of the workers.

What? Putting a shovel on an AK is stupid.

https://www.northeastshooters.com/xen/t ... ng.179192/

[Ifreann]

Yes, because procuring arms for the Red Army was simply a matter of Stalin's personal opinion on guns. If he had wanted guns then they would have just appeared.

Are you implying that Comrade Stalin didn’t shit AKs and spit ammunition?

Comrade Stalin consumed only vodka, and freed from the inefficiencies of capitalism, he did not excrete.

[Soviet Tankistan]

The main view is that of-bloody-fucking-course socialists in general should be pro-gun. A core part of socialism as an umbrella of ideologies (especially when you inch towards Marxian or Krotopkin-esque Communism) is that the default state of workers while under a non-socialist system is necessarily "oppressed and suppressed". Marxian Communism in particular is pretty open about the "if you disarm the workers, you're leaving them at the hands of the Capitalist Class, and that's -if you still haven't got the hint- bad."

Now, Authoritarian Socialists in particular, since they -decidedly, as they are authoritarian- also support the suppression of workers, but by the state rather than by their private employers. So, in their particular case, they are totally pro gun as long as they aren't in charge, at which point guns should not be found at the hands of the workers, but the State's Soldiers. Obviously, exceptions do apply (Socialist Albania had a uniquely pro-gun approach to the "should workers own guns under a socialist state?" question despite its authoritarianism)

I don’t know much about Albania. Was this under Hoxha? But authoritarian socialists can be pro gun if they are in charge. In the case of the USSR’s civil war, it was the well armed few versus the unarmed masses. Given Soviet supporters gun would help beat out the Whites instead of waiting for the Red Army.