Should Authoritarian Socialists be Pro Gun

[Shanhwa]

So you just want the kind of gun that is used in most murders?

Which kind is used in most murders?

Most gun crime is committed with handguns.

[Ifreann]

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.

Authoritarian socialists should NOT support the private ownership of means of mass production (killing the enemies of the people is mass production, after all) such as firearms.
Authoritarian socialists should support being drafted into the armed service for the purpose of furthering Mother Motherland's glorious advance towards the ultimate goal of Communism.

You know what they say, comrade, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, and the Red Army needs you.

---

Which kind is used in most murders?

Most gun crime is committed with handguns.

Ban hands.

[West Leas Oros 2]

ALL socialists, regardless of difference should be pro-gun, as well as oppose gun control. The worker's revolution fundamentally relies on it.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

ALL socialists, regardless of difference should be pro-gun, as well as oppose gun control. The worker's revolution fundamentally relies on it.

What about the workers' reform?

[West Leas Oros 2]

ALL socialists, regardless of difference should be pro-gun, as well as oppose gun control. The worker's revolution fundamentally relies on it.

What about the workers' reform?

Even reformists should be pro-gun. Hard to get the bourgeois to even consider reform with the workers hopelessly outgunned.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

What about the workers' reform?

Even reformists should be pro-gun. Hard to get the bourgeois to even consider reform with the workers hopelessly outgunned.

True. Pretty much any political ideology should have a self-interest to be arms. Unfortunately, some political ideologies really shouldn't be armed, but rights are rights. What can ya do?

[West Leas Oros 2]

Even reformists should be pro-gun. Hard to get the bourgeois to even consider reform with the workers hopelessly outgunned.

True. Pretty much any political ideology should have a self-interest to be arms. Unfortunately, some political ideologies really shouldn't be armed, but rights are rights. What can ya do?

Surprised we agree on this.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

True. Pretty much any political ideology should have a self-interest to be arms. Unfortunately, some political ideologies really shouldn't be armed, but rights are rights. What can ya do?

Surprised we agree on this.

I think we agree on more than we disagree on, even with me being a bourgeois pig and you being a filthy commie.

However, just because I think it's a right for revolutionary Socialists to arm themselves and it's in their interest to do so, doesn't mean I approve of them using those arms to wage revolution.

[Rezmaeristan]

Not an authoritarian socialist, but I'm pro-gun because we need 'em for the revolution. What you do once in power is up to you. For me, I say restrict private ownership of high-capacity weapons to party leaders, and members of the party paramilitary. Every segment of society being represented by a guild makes mass armament unnecessary, but I still think everyone should be able to have a basic defense weapon like a shotgun, a revolver or a hunting rifle.

[Soviet Tankistan]

“Fuck the people, only the state needs to be safe.”

Yes exactly. The State embodies the ideals that should be kept safe.

The state’s actions are supposed to help the people.

[Soviet Tankistan]

Even reformists should be pro-gun. Hard to get the bourgeois to even consider reform with the workers hopelessly outgunned.

True. Pretty much any political ideology should have a self-interest to be arms. Unfortunately, some political ideologies really shouldn't be armed, but rights are rights. What can ya do?

Fascists should be the only ones without guns.

[Shanhwa]

True. Pretty much any political ideology should have a self-interest to be arms. Unfortunately, some political ideologies really shouldn't be armed, but rights are rights. What can ya do?

Fascists should be the only ones without guns.

But what is the extent of the definition “fascist”? When the state controls the means of overthrowing itself and it can define whomever it wants however it wants, what is to stop it from being tyrannical and designating an ethnic group as “fascists” and proceeding to unarm and genocide them, or something similar?

The state would be able to make the definition however broad it wants it to be, and designating whoever it wants.

[Shanhwa]

So you just want the kind of gun that is used in most murders?

This isn't about protecting the average citizen but keeping the balance of firepower in favour of the State Forces.

Do I seriously need to explain why the hell this is a bad idea?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

True. Pretty much any political ideology should have a self-interest to be arms. Unfortunately, some political ideologies really shouldn't be armed, but rights are rights. What can ya do?

Fascists should be the only ones without guns.

I agree, but it is in their interest to have guns, and it is their right to have guns.

[Soviet Tankistan]

Fascists should be the only ones without guns.

But what is the extent of the definition “fascist”? When the state controls the means of overthrowing itself and it can define whomever it wants however it wants, what is to stop it from being tyrannical and designating an ethnic group as “fascists” and proceeding to unarm and genocide them, or something similar?

The state would be able to make the definition however broad it wants it to be, and designating whoever it wants.

Whoever calls themself fascist can safely be recognized as a fascist even if they aren’t. Further, those who ideologically replicate fascists can also be considered fascists. Ethnic groups would not be labeled fascists. There are always people who say their ethnicity is superior to others, and they would be in trouble. Those who don’t are fine, regardless of race or ethnicity.
Also, you confuse “no private enterprise” with “you can’t have your own stuff” which is not true. You would still be able to have guns that the state doesn’t really own. There’s no property in the economic aspect where you can freely trade it, only in the social sense where you can have something that is yours. The state cannot control all guns in the country, it has legal power to stop terrorist attacks though. You have guns like you have personal supplies. You have it and can use it to an extent, just not too much. The state would only have the usual capabilities to stop a large scale revolution, not extra ones you claim are provided by the economic system. It is only more effective at small violations like murders.

[Soviet Tankistan]

Fascists should be the only ones without guns.

I agree, but it is in their interest to have guns, and it is their right to have guns.

Many fascists believe in no rights that do not directly benefit themselves. Even when they support some rights, it is very conditional to the point only one group may practice this.

[Soviet Tankistan]

What about the workers' reform?

Even reformists should be pro-gun. Hard to get the bourgeois to even consider reform with the workers hopelessly outgunned.

Numbers, according to themselves. Their thinking is flawed, America does not work by a government elected with a popular vote. This only makes revolution more viable, however, as reform is surprising futile considering the system is supposed to be democratic.

[Shanhwa]

But what is the extent of the definition “fascist”? When the state controls the means of overthrowing itself and it can define whomever it wants however it wants, what is to stop it from being tyrannical and designating an ethnic group as “fascists” and proceeding to unarm and genocide them, or something similar?

The state would be able to make the definition however broad it wants it to be, and designating whoever it wants.

Whoever calls themself fascist can safely be recognized as a fascist even if they aren’t. Further, those who ideologically replicate fascists can also be considered fascists. Ethnic groups would not be labeled fascists. There are always people who say their ethnicity is superior to others, and they would be in trouble. Those who don’t are fine, regardless of race or ethnicity.
Also, you confuse “no private enterprise” with “you can’t have your own stuff” which is not true. You would still be able to have guns that the state doesn’t really own. There’s no property in the economic aspect where you can freely trade it, only in the social sense where you can have something that is yours. The state cannot control all guns in the country, it has legal power to stop terrorist attacks though. You have guns like you have personal supplies. You have it and can use it to an extent, just not too much. The state would only have the usual capabilities to stop a large scale revolution, not extra ones you claim are provided by the economic system. It is only more effective at small violations like murders.

I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. In the same vein that a government can brandish one a terrorist, in this theoretical government one who is deemed a fascist would have their rights stripped away and their means of self defense destroyed, especially if the state decided to “take care” of them.

Your sentence at the beginning doesn’t help with such a theory; “They can be recognized as a fascist, even if they aren’t”.

[Soviet Tankistan]

Whoever calls themself fascist can safely be recognized as a fascist even if they aren’t. Further, those who ideologically replicate fascists can also be considered fascists. Ethnic groups would not be labeled fascists. There are always people who say their ethnicity is superior to others, and they would be in trouble. Those who don’t are fine, regardless of race or ethnicity.
Also, you confuse “no private enterprise” with “you can’t have your own stuff” which is not true. You would still be able to have guns that the state doesn’t really own. There’s no property in the economic aspect where you can freely trade it, only in the social sense where you can have something that is yours. The state cannot control all guns in the country, it has legal power to stop terrorist attacks though. You have guns like you have personal supplies. You have it and can use it to an extent, just not too much. The state would only have the usual capabilities to stop a large scale revolution, not extra ones you claim are provided by the economic system. It is only more effective at small violations like murders.

I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. In the same vein that a government can brandish one a terrorist, in this theoretical government one who is deemed a fascist would have their rights stripped away and their means of self defense destroyed, especially if the state decided to “take care” of them.

Your sentence at the beginning doesn’t help with such a theory; “They can be recognized as a fascist, even if they aren’t”.

Are you saying that the government shouldn’t be able to combat terrorism? At least it is consistent with the last part. If someone calls themselves fascists but they technically aren’t, does it matter? They still endorse it. That is like saying you are a terrorist yet you legally aren’t. The government will still be very suspicious and may do something. You don’t seem to like this. What is your alternative to stop terrorism, assuming you wish to?

[Shanhwa]

I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. In the same vein that a government can brandish one a terrorist, in this theoretical government one who is deemed a fascist would have their rights stripped away and their means of self defense destroyed, especially if the state decided to “take care” of them.

Your sentence at the beginning doesn’t help with such a theory; “They can be recognized as a fascist, even if they aren’t”.

Are you saying that the government shouldn’t be able to combat terrorism? At least it is consistent with the last part. If someone calls themselves fascists but they technically aren’t, does it matter? They still endorse it. That is like saying you are a terrorist yet you legally aren’t. The government will still be very suspicious and may do something. You don’t seem to like this. What is your alternative to stop terrorism, assuming you wish to?

lmao no, I’m not saying the government shouldn’t combat terrorism. Trying to claim that shows you don’t understand what I’m saying.

I’m saying the state would easily abuse the system to get rid of people it didn’t like, even if they didn’t actually agree with what is claimed they do.

[Soviet Tankistan]

What about the workers' reform?

Even reformists should be pro-gun. Hard to get the bourgeois to even consider reform with the workers hopelessly outgunned.

Correct, but your thinking of the “bourgeois” in inaccurate and outdated. The corporations and their backers, including most politicians, are the enemy, always the rich. The workers are those who live under this system and are in some way controlled by the rich. All the particularly rich are corrupt and not to be trusted, whether they identify as liberal or conservative. The middle class is no concern, they just need to be enlightened to the manipulation of all workers and their own mistreatment. Society should belong to the most valuable, the hardest workers. The corporations must be disarmed and destroyed so the common man can thrive. The conscious people who contribute should be armed and ready to fight against corporate tyranny.

[Soviet Tankistan]

Are you saying that the government shouldn’t be able to combat terrorism? At least it is consistent with the last part. If someone calls themselves fascists but they technically aren’t, does it matter? They still endorse it. That is like saying you are a terrorist yet you legally aren’t. The government will still be very suspicious and may do something. You don’t seem to like this. What is your alternative to stop terrorism, assuming you wish to?

lmao no, I’m not saying the government shouldn’t combat terrorism. Trying to claim that shows you don’t understand what I’m saying.

I’m saying the state would easily abuse the system to get rid of people it didn’t like, even if they didn’t actually agree with what is claimed they do.

The same can be said for terrorists. I cannot say I am going to bomb the White House, and rightly so. I would be supporting illegal and morally incorrect violent crimes. It doesn’t matter whether I had an actual attempt to bomb the White House or whether I was bombing the one in DC. Its still dumb and the government should stop anyone proposing it. The government still can use the system and get rid of people they don’t like as terrorists, but it is better than letting terrorists murder and destroy. The state must be able to regulate itself. If it can’t, there’s little to do, regardless of the system. It appears you don’t understand what you’re saying, any system can be abused but the state must still use them unless you want out of control crime.

[Asherahan]

Yes exactly. The State embodies the ideals that should be kept safe.

The state’s actions are supposed to help the people.

Think the State as an organism that can't replicate and just trying to survive after a certain threshold is passed. If something starts to threaten the state then it will suppress it in a heartbeat. Think of Communism and the Ideals the US state embodies. How did that go? Indirect suppression of extreme leftist thought.

[Asherahan]

This isn't about protecting the average citizen but keeping the balance of firepower in favour of the State Forces.

Do I seriously need to explain why the hell this is a bad idea?

There is a reason why a common citizenry can't have tanks, apcs and fighter planes. This is just extending it to firepower multipliers.

[Diyaristan]

"A revolution is the most authoritarian thing there is." -- Friedrich Engels

Mainly to OP:

If you take the Leninist conception of the state explained in The State and Revolution, any state, it's one class organized as the ruling class, and forcibly suppressing all other classes.

If you wanted the final goal of classless communism to actually be realized, sometime or another there'd have to be a "self-acting, armed organization of the whole population" (Lenin). He mentioned in the same book that a society "ruled by... a militia of the whole people" was to be the end goal of the proletarian revolution.

Observe the present-day fight over the Second Amendment. You see one part of the population trying to impose its will upon the other, and (to take an example) the voices pushing loudest to take guns away from the workers would continue to try and do so if they were armed. What do you do with this population of gun-control supporters who are aggressively pushing to take away your weapons? That's a class struggle.

My point is, authoritarian socialism, at least within the framework of Marxism, would itself have to acknowledge the authoritarian measures strictly within the line of self-defense against an authoritarian population, and acknowledge the goal of such a state as a stage on the way to a classless, stateless society and its withering away.

While you may recall from our debates before that I'd suspect a proletarian revolution where that higher stage of communism was actually reached would simply revert back to a market society by the will of that whole-people militia's members itself, the point is that even authoritarian Marxism justifies its temporary authoritarian state on the basis that a non-authoritarian society in the future is the end it's intended to achieve.