Should Authoritarian Socialists be Pro Gun

[Hammer Britannia]

I don't understand why you need to be pro-gun if you are a revolutionary socialist. Gun ownership being legal or not won't change the fact that your revolution will be illegal.

But it will change the fact of how many people are able to defend it. Think about it, think of the attrition that would come about from invading Nevada.

Now, imagine invading Nevada, but almost everyone has a gun. Behind every dune their is a civilian and his rifle ready to die for the revolution. That's the point of arming the civilians in a socialist state if I am correct. As for when the revolution is "secure", well that's an oxymoron. The revolution is never safe and will always need defending. Whether from external or internal threats, there will always be someone trying to dismantle the Socialism the people worked so hard on and the people will need to defend themselves and their revolution.

If I am starting to sound like a Socialist, that's only because I am putting myself in their shoes.

[Soviet Tankistan]

I'm what you'd consider an "authoritarian socialist" (whatever that means) and yes I'm pro gun, Marx himself even said "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; Any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated by force if necessary."

I'm an authoritarian socialist, and I'm incredibly pro-take them all away 100%. I find the logic of them being useful in revolution as being too idealistic. The weapons available to the military of a nation will stop any MODERN revolution in its tracks (at least concerning the first and second world nations... I can't comment on third world). A revolution starting in modern day Petrograd, if it got wayyyyy out of hand, would just be nuked. It seems crazy, but a dictator is willing to do anything in my opinion to not get thrown to the revolution (death). Even if a modern revolution did succeed, it'd just result in the mass destruction of the nation and allow easy foreign invasion. Plus, I can't see it garnering enough support in the modern day to do anything but wipe our numbers.

Then again, my take is extremely cynical.

This is entirely composed of nonsense.

I don't understand why you need to be pro-gun if you are a revolutionary socialist. Gun ownership being legal or not won't change the fact that your revolution will be illegal.

The point is having a majority of the population angry at the government and also having them easily armed. It is cheaper to arm militias with fewer gun regulations.

[Soviet Tankistan]

I don't understand why you need to be pro-gun if you are a revolutionary socialist. Gun ownership being legal or not won't change the fact that your revolution will be illegal.

But it will change the fact of how many people are able to defend it. Think about it, think of the attrition that would come about from invading Nevada.

Now, imagine invading Nevada, but almost everyone has a gun. Behind every dune their is a civilian and his rifle ready to die for the revolution. That's the point of arming the civilians in a socialist state if I am correct. As for when the revolution is "secure", well that's an oxymoron. The revolution is never safe and will always need defending. Whether from external or internal threats, there will always be someone trying to dismantle the Socialism the people worked so hard on and the people will need to defend themselves and their revolution.

If I am starting to sound like a Socialist, that's only because I am putting myself in their shoes.

Correct, people must collectively and individually defend themselves from enemies if the need is proportional.

[Leninist Haven]

Since this is just my point to begin with, I don't think I need to write anything here?

So you don't want anything to defend the revolution with...? So you want the revolution to fail...?

Such as...?

Romania in 89 for one.

Ahh, this seems to be a semantic issue (I have always argued that they do matter). My apologies. It was my understanding that post-Cold War was equated with "modern." I will point out, however, that Romania is a bit of an extreme, if only because the army itself didn't side with the government... Which does seem relevant to my point. True, it does highlight that the military could side with the population... But if the military attacks the government, that doesn't generally require a revolution, does it?

As for the initial part, I was saying that what I had written was merely my argument (and I was confused why you commented on my argument rather than why I held it). I don't find it important, but I say this because my clarification seems to have also failed.
I googled, and I could not find any 1st/2nd world revolutions in the 21st century, which was why I questioned that.

[Kernen]

Everybody should be pro-gun.

[Leninist Haven]

I'm an authoritarian socialist, and I'm incredibly pro-take them all away 100%. I find the logic of them being useful in revolution as being too idealistic. The weapons available to the military of a nation will stop any MODERN revolution in its tracks (at least concerning the first and second world nations... I can't comment on third world). A revolution starting in modern day Petrograd, if it got wayyyyy out of hand, would just be nuked. It seems crazy, but a dictator is willing to do anything in my opinion to not get thrown to the revolution (death). Even if a modern revolution did succeed, it'd just result in the mass destruction of the nation and allow easy foreign invasion. Plus, I can't see it garnering enough support in the modern day to do anything but wipe our numbers.

Then again, my take is extremely cynical.

This is entirely composed of nonsense.

I don't understand why you need to be pro-gun if you are a revolutionary socialist. Gun ownership being legal or not won't change the fact that your revolution will be illegal.

The point is having a majority of the population angry at the government and also having them easily armed. It is cheaper to arm militias with fewer gun regulations.

To address mine, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to respond to that. I'd appreciate if you told me what exactly is wrong with what I said, rather than simply dismissing it. I made a point specific to your response to Risastorstein, that "arming militias" doesn't seem reasonable in the modern setting for two reasons: 1) Political Apathy. The lumpenproletariat, unless somehow "awakened," will not join the revolution by its very definition. This makes the actual number of revolutionaries quite limited... Unless you feel that something would awaken the masses?
2) Massive casualties. Even trained militia versus a military's modern arsenal would seem to be a bloodbath. Why don't you believe it would be so, and if you do, why do you find it acceptable, relatively?

[Kernen]

This is entirely composed of nonsense.

The point is having a majority of the population angry at the government and also having them easily armed. It is cheaper to arm militias with fewer gun regulations.

To address mine, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to respond to that. I'd appreciate if you told me what exactly is wrong with what I said, rather than simply dismissing it. I made a point specific to your response to Risastorstein, that "arming militias" doesn't seem reasonable in the modern setting for two reasons: 1) Political Apathy. The lumpenproletariat, unless somehow "awakened," will not join the revolution by its very definition. This makes the actual number of revolutionaries quite limited... Unless you feel that something would awaken the masses?
2) Massive casualties. Even trained militia versus a military's modern arsenal would seem to be a bloodbath. Why don't you believe it would be so, and if you do, why do you find it acceptable, relatively?

The nature of revolutionary combat is not one of standing armies and direct confrontation, but of insurgency. A trained militia or ragtag bunch of rebels doesn't need to stand up to a tank platoon, because the combat doctrine demands otherwise.

Its hard to pretend that insurgency isn't effective as part of an ongoing political goal.

[The New California Republic]

It was my understanding that post-Cold War was equated with "modern."

Not really. Modern can be classed as anything in the present or recent time, and the 20th century fits that definition.

I will point out, however, that Romania is a bit of an extreme, if only because the army itself didn't side with the government... Which does seem relevant to my point.

So? There have been several revolutions whereby the military has broken ranks with the government, such as the Russian Revolution. It could even be argued that some splitting of the military is a necessary prerequisite for a revolution to succeed.

But if the military attacks the government, that doesn't generally require a revolution, does it?

Revolutions can be a mix of military and civilian involvement, as was the case in Romania, and Russia.

[Risastorstein]

But it will change the fact of how many people are able to defend it. Think about it, think of the attrition that would come about from invading Nevada.

Now, imagine invading Nevada, but almost everyone has a gun. Behind every dune their is a civilian and his rifle ready to die for the revolution. That's the point of arming the civilians in a socialist state if I am correct. As for when the revolution is "secure", well that's an oxymoron. The revolution is never safe and will always need defending. Whether from external or internal threats, there will always be someone trying to dismantle the Socialism the people worked so hard on and the people will need to defend themselves and their revolution.

If I am starting to sound like a Socialist, that's only because I am putting myself in their shoes.

Yeah, but if the right to own guns is legal for everyone, then even "reactionary forces" will have them. And Nevada has many, many, many more "reactionaries" than socialists.
To be honest, I don't think any "socialist progress" can be achieved using violence in first world countries (unless there's a total meltdown of society but then capitalism won't even exist so no point in doing a silly revolution...)

The point is having a majority of the population angry at the government and also having them easily armed. It is cheaper to arm militias with fewer gun regulations.

How do you make sure that this "rage against the machine" won't be reactionary? For example, in the US, it's mostly right-wing people who are the most likely to rebel against the State or the government. And they will be armed too.

[Kernen]

But it will change the fact of how many people are able to defend it. Think about it, think of the attrition that would come about from invading Nevada.

Now, imagine invading Nevada, but almost everyone has a gun. Behind every dune their is a civilian and his rifle ready to die for the revolution. That's the point of arming the civilians in a socialist state if I am correct. As for when the revolution is "secure", well that's an oxymoron. The revolution is never safe and will always need defending. Whether from external or internal threats, there will always be someone trying to dismantle the Socialism the people worked so hard on and the people will need to defend themselves and their revolution.

If I am starting to sound like a Socialist, that's only because I am putting myself in their shoes.

Yeah, but if the right to own guns is legal for everyone, then even "reactionary forces" will have them. And Nevada has many, many, many more "reactionaries" than socialists.
To be honest, I don't think any "socialist progress" can be achieved using violence in first world countries (unless there's a total meltdown of society but then capitalism won't even exist so no point in doing a silly revolution...)

The point is having a majority of the population angry at the government and also having them easily armed. It is cheaper to arm militias with fewer gun regulations.

How do you make sure that this "rage against the machine" won't be reactionary? For example, in the US, it's mostly right-wing people who are the most likely to rebel against the State or the government. And they will be armed too.

I'd say the solution is not to foment a socialist revolution in the US and abandon any such dreams, but I suspect that won't happen.

[The New California Republic]

The lumpenproletariat, unless somehow "awakened," will not join the revolution by its very definition. This makes the actual number of revolutionaries quite limited...

You seem to misunderstand what the lumpenproletariat is. The lumpenproletariat makes up only a small minority of the proletariat, and can be ignored during the course of a revolution if need be.

Massive casualties. Even trained militia versus a military's modern arsenal would seem to be a bloodbath. Why don't you believe it would be so, and if you do, why do you find it acceptable, relatively?

Insurgency is a thing you know. If the revolution tries to fight set-piece battles before it is ready then it deserves to be defeated...

[Soviet Tankistan]

But it will change the fact of how many people are able to defend it. Think about it, think of the attrition that would come about from invading Nevada.

Now, imagine invading Nevada, but almost everyone has a gun. Behind every dune their is a civilian and his rifle ready to die for the revolution. That's the point of arming the civilians in a socialist state if I am correct. As for when the revolution is "secure", well that's an oxymoron. The revolution is never safe and will always need defending. Whether from external or internal threats, there will always be someone trying to dismantle the Socialism the people worked so hard on and the people will need to defend themselves and their revolution.

If I am starting to sound like a Socialist, that's only because I am putting myself in their shoes.

Yeah, but if the right to own guns is legal for everyone, then even "reactionary forces" will have them. And Nevada has many, many, many more "reactionaries" than socialists.
To be honest, I don't think any "socialist progress" can be achieved using violence in first world countries (unless there's a total meltdown of society but then capitalism won't even exist so no point in doing a silly revolution...)

The point is having a majority of the population angry at the government and also having them easily armed. It is cheaper to arm militias with fewer gun regulations.

How do you make sure that this "rage against the machine" won't be reactionary? For example, in the US, it's mostly right-wing people who are the most likely to rebel against the State or the government. And they will be armed too.

This higher armament rate among rightists is exactly why socialists need to have guns. They must protect themselves from unjust violence and the threat of force is very powerful for both parties involved. I'm not sure what that his machine is.

[Risastorstein]

I'd say the solution is not to foment a socialist revolution in the US and abandon any such dreams, but I suspect that won't happen.

Do people really believe that such an event is remotely possible in the US or Europe?

[Kernen]

I'd say the solution is not to foment a socialist revolution in the US and abandon any such dreams, but I suspect that won't happen.

Do people really believe that such an event is remotely possible in the US or Europe?

Most people don't, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't squash the notion wherever it pops up.

[Leninist Haven]

It was my understanding that post-Cold War was equated with "modern."

Not really. Modern can be classed as anything in the present or recent time, and the 20th century fits that definition.

Yes... I said that... I even apologized for the error in clarity and significance of semantics leading to confusion...?

I will point out, however, that Romania is a bit of an extreme, if only because the army itself didn't side with the government... Which does seem relevant to my point.

So? There have been several revolutions whereby the military has broken ranks with the government, such as the Russian Revolution. It could even be argued that some splitting of the military is a necessary prerequisite for a revolution to succeed.

My point was that if the government doesn't side with the revolution, then the government is attacking the militamen in a battle that they cannot win. I agree with you that the military generally deserts the government once the situation turns sour, but if they don't, I don't see things turning pretty. You seem to agree with that point, based on your belief that the military support might be necessary.

But if the military attacks the government, that doesn't generally require a revolution, does it?

Revolutions can be a mix of military and civilian involvement, as was the case in Romania, and Russia.

Yes, they can be. The point was that coups were incredibly effective during that time period as well, the vast majority of them succeeding without anyone's help but the military. If a significant portion of the military joins the rebels and no foreign powers become involved, then it becomes "large rebel part of military" vs. "small, loyal part of military." The government depends on the military to defend itself, so if they rebel, then the government quickly runs out ways to stop them.

[Kernen]

Its odd to think that a revolution in most western nations, the US specifically, could be carried by the military and also end up socialist. Without civilian involvement, such a coup would likely end up just a military junta.

[Risastorstein]

This higher armament rate among rightists is exactly why socialists need to have guns. They must protect themselves from unjust violence and the threat of force is very powerful for both parties involved. I'm not sure what that his machine is.

Or maybe they realize that there are other ways to change things and that the US is not on the brink a civil war?
And how many hardcore socialists are there in the US? 1%?

[The New California Republic]

So? There have been several revolutions whereby the military has broken ranks with the government, such as the Russian Revolution. It could even be argued that some splitting of the military is a necessary prerequisite for a revolution to succeed.

My point was that if the government doesn't side with the revolution, then the government is attacking the militamen in a battle that they cannot win.

Why would the government side with the revolution...?

I agree with you that the military generally deserts the government once the situation turns sour, but if they don't, I don't see things turning pretty. You seem to agree with that point, based on your belief that the military support might be necessary.

Not necessarily support, but a fracturing of the military. That can take the form of depleting their effectiveness by sowing confusion in their ranks, rather than the military overtly supporting the revolution.

[Leninist Haven]

The lumpenproletariat, unless somehow "awakened," will not join the revolution by its very definition. This makes the actual number of revolutionaries quite limited...

You seem to misunderstand what the lumpenproletariat is. The lumpenproletariat makes up only a small minority of the proletariat, and can be ignored during the course of a revolution if need be.

It might depend on where you live. The USA was the hotbed of McCarthyism, citizens actively fighting communism without having any idea what it meant. They were more than willing to report communists to the authorities based on unjust laws, and to this very day, treat liberals as "far leftists." If a large part of the US believes that, then how on earth can they not be lumpen?

Or, let's take it out of the USA. You truly believe that in a first/second world country such as say, random country out of a hat, Spain, only has a bit of visciously anti-communist proletarians?

Massive casualties. Even trained militia versus a military's modern arsenal would seem to be a bloodbath. Why don't you believe it would be so, and if you do, why do you find it acceptable, relatively?

Insurgency is a thing you know. If the revolution tries to fight set-piece battles before it is ready then it deserves to be defeated...

While that's true, it doesn't always work out. Guerillas work well (and all the necessary work to setup said revolutions), but if Che Guevara failed (due to especially high foreign influence), I don't think we should just accept that they are in any way "guaranteed" (I know you don't argue that it must be 100% ready beforehand, but how can you ever know when it is ready?)

[The New California Republic]

Its odd to think that a revolution in most western nations, the US specifically, could be carried by the military and also end up socialist. Without civilian involvement, such a coup would likely end up just a military junta.

If the military forces that were formerly loyal to the government did the majority of the heavy lifting in the revolution then I doubt that it'd be in any way socialist, as the military would end up with the majority of the power; and it would also be indicative of the popular forces of the revolution being weak, if it was forced to rely so heavily on the military to do most of their dirty work.

[Kernen]

While that's true, it doesn't always work out. Guerillas work well (and all the necessary work to setup said revolutions), but if Che Guevara failed (due to especially high foreign influence), I don't think we should just accept that they are in any way "guaranteed" (I know you don't argue that it must be 100% ready beforehand, but how can you ever know when it is ready?)

Irrelevant. Any effort a guerilla movement can make is valuable, even if it wouldn't be successful on its own.

[Soviet Tankistan]

This higher armament rate among rightists is exactly why socialists need to have guns. They must protect themselves from unjust violence and the threat of force is very powerful for both parties involved. I'm not sure what that his machine is.

Or maybe they realize that there are other ways to change things and that the US is not on the brink a civil war?
And how many hardcore socialists are there in the US? 1%?

For all socialists, 1 percent is probably the higher possibility. The DemSocs are the largest organization I've heard of and they are still small. They aren't even proper socialists. Authoritarian socialists may be around 10% of socialists, it's still like numbers. The best plan of action is having the government fuck up badly enough.

[Leninist Haven]

So? There have been several revolutions whereby the military has broken ranks with the government, such as the Russian Revolution. It could even be argued that some splitting of the military is a necessary prerequisite for a revolution to succeed.

My point was that if the government doesn't side with the revolution, then the government is attacking the militamen in a battle that they cannot win.
Why would the government side with the revolution...?

It's mostly rhetorical. The government won't side with the revolution, and therefore, the government is attacking the militamen in a battle that they cannot win. Again, I stated that government's armed force is the military. It is the government's enforcers, its armed wing. I was emphasizing how without it, the government crumbles, being completely defenseless. I swear I'm trying to fight my terrible poetic tendencies. I recognize that they are looked down upon in a prose environment.

I agree with you that the military generally deserts the government once the situation turns sour, but if they don't, I don't see things turning pretty. You seem to agree with that point, based on your belief that the military support might be necessary.

Not necessarily support, but a fracturing of the military. That can take the form of depleting their effectiveness by sowing confusion in their ranks, rather than the military overtly supporting the revolution.

In my mind, that's simply supporting them. I'm not disagreeing with you here, I'm actually agreeing with you. Please bear with my unfortunate tendencies in writing. I do acknowledge them, and give credit when due.

[Risastorstein]

For all socialists, 1 percent is probably the higher possibility. The DemSocs are the largest organization I've heard of and they are still small. They aren't even proper socialists. Authoritarian socialists may be around 10% of socialists, it's still like numbers. The best plan of action is having the government fuck up badly enough.

This revolution sounds like a violent tyranny.
Too few people and too many assumptions for this be feasible.

[The New California Republic]

It might depend on where you live. The USA was the hotbed of McCarthyism, citizens actively fighting communism without having any idea what it meant. They were more than willing to report communists to the authorities based on unjust laws, and to this very day, treat liberals as "far leftists." If a large part of the US believes that, then how on earth can they not be lumpen?

Being counter-revolutionary does not automatically make them lumpenproletariat. Again you don't seem to understand what lumpenproletariat means.

While that's true, it doesn't always work out. Guerillas work well (and all the necessary work to setup said revolutions), but if Che Guevara failed (due to especially high foreign influence), I don't think we should just accept that they are in any way "guaranteed"

Did I say that they were?

(I know you don't argue that it must be 100% ready beforehand, but how can you ever know when it is ready?)

When the opposing forces have been significantly weakened to the point of being vulnerable to conventional attack...