Should Authoritarian Socialists be Pro Gun

[Leninist Haven]

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.

Of course it is, naturally. At least, until it's successfully spun against them. Rare, but possible. My concern is that if it isn't successful, then we simply look like the people's enemy. For instance, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht's failed revolution did spur on the KPD. It also, however, made a vicious reaction. Part of the whole "history is written by the victors."

[Kernen]

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

Of course it is, naturally. At least, until it's successfully spun against them. Rare, but possible. My concern is that if it isn't successful, then we simply look like the people's enemy. For instance, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht's failed revolution did spur on the KPD. It also, however, made a vicious reaction. Part of the whole "history is written by the victors."

Great. Its a win-win. More left-leaning people become pro-gun, and if they try something, authoritarian and socialist revolutions get demonized even more.

[Leninist Haven]

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.

Lumpenproletariat: "essentially parasitical group was largely the remains of older, obsolete stages of social development, and that it could not normally play a progressive role in history. Indeed, because it acted only out of socially ignorant self-interest, the lumpenproletariat was easily bribed by reactionary forces and could be used to combat the true proletariat in its efforts to bring about the end of bourgeois society. Without a clear class-consciousness, the lumpenproletariat could not play a positive role in society. Instead, it exploited society for its own ends, and was in turn exploited as a tool of destruction and reaction."
So... The average person who lacks class consciousness and actively harms the revolution. Are you not arguing that they are in large portion of society? Because if you argued that and didn't include this particular definition, that would imply that you're not counting the ones who actively don't help the revolution... Meaning that a large counter-revolutionary force + some who simply don't care = Very few supports of socialism to actually take the country.

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 didn't say you did? I merely said that we shouldn't accept that they're a perfect end-all means, meaning that we should have some other form of help to guarantee it. The quotes merely meant that it wasn't to be taken as a literal, 100% guarantee.

(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...

Which is when they're at 10% fighting capability? 60%? I argue that this number is very significant, and equally as difficult to determine.

Of course it is, naturally. At least, until it's successfully spun against them. Rare, but possible. My concern is that if it isn't successful, then we simply look like the people's enemy. For instance, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht's failed revolution did spur on the KPD. It also, however, made a vicious reaction. Part of the whole "history is written by the victors."

Great. Its a win-win. More left-leaning people become pro-gun, and if they try something, authoritarian and socialist revolutions get demonized even more.

Is this sarcastic? I don't seem to understand your point. I don't understand how demonization helps the movement, especially considering that the lumpen is defined as being controlled to attack its own interests quite simply.

[Risastorstein]

Lumpenproletariat: "essentially parasitical group was largely the remains of older, obsolete stages of social development, and that it could not normally play a progressive role in history. Indeed, because it acted only out of socially ignorant self-interest, the lumpenproletariat was easily bribed by reactionary forces and could be used to combat the true proletariat in its efforts to bring about the end of bourgeois society. Without a clear class-consciousness, the lumpenproletariat could not play a positive role in society. Instead, it exploited society for its own ends, and was in turn exploited as a tool of destruction and reaction."
So... The average person who lacks class consciousness and actively harms the revolution. Are you not arguing that they are in large portion of society? Because if you argued that and didn't include this particular definition, that would imply that you're not counting the ones who actively don't help the revolution... Meaning that a large counter-revolutionary force + some who simply don't care = Very few supports of socialism to actually take the country.

Thought it described the "proletariat of the proletariat", those who are exploited by everyone else and seen as worthless by society (prostitutes, homeless people, pimps and drug dealers).

[Leninist Haven]

Lumpenproletariat: "essentially parasitical group was largely the remains of older, obsolete stages of social development, and that it could not normally play a progressive role in history. Indeed, because it acted only out of socially ignorant self-interest, the lumpenproletariat was easily bribed by reactionary forces and could be used to combat the true proletariat in its efforts to bring about the end of bourgeois society. Without a clear class-consciousness, the lumpenproletariat could not play a positive role in society. Instead, it exploited society for its own ends, and was in turn exploited as a tool of destruction and reaction."
So... The average person who lacks class consciousness and actively harms the revolution. Are you not arguing that they are in large portion of society? Because if you argued that and didn't include this particular definition, that would imply that you're not counting the ones who actively don't help the revolution... Meaning that a large counter-revolutionary force + some who simply don't care = Very few supports of socialism to actually take the country.

Thought it described the "proletariat of the proletariat", those who are exploited by everyone else and seen as worthless by society (prostitutes, homeless people, pimps and drug dealers).

I've never seen it viewed as a positive term, I've only seen it used as a negative. Marx and Engels defined it a bit differently many times they wrote about it (Which makes sense, if I'm asked the same question, I likely won't respond verbatim each time). Another definition that they themselves directly gave, however, was as follows: "The lumpenproletariat is passive decaying matter of the lowest layers of the old society, is here and there thrust into the [progressive] movement by a proletarian revolution; [however,] in accordance with its whole way of life, it is more likely to sell out to reactionary intrigues."
The klassenfeind shares a lot of similarities with it, quite a lot.

[The New California Republic]

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

Lumpenproletariat: "essentially parasitical group was largely the remains of older, obsolete stages of social development, and that it could not normally play a progressive role in history. Indeed, because it acted only out of socially ignorant self-interest, the lumpenproletariat was easily bribed by reactionary forces and could be used to combat the true proletariat in its efforts to bring about the end of bourgeois society. Without a clear class-consciousness, the lumpenproletariat could not play a positive role in society. Instead, it exploited society for its own ends, and was in turn exploited as a tool of destruction and reaction."

Bad definition. Here is a better one:

Lumpenproletariat, (German: “rabble proletariat”), according to Karl Marx in The Communist Manifesto, the lowest stratum of the industrial working class, including also such undesirables as tramps and criminals. The members of the Lumpenproletariat—this “social scum,” said Marx—are not only disinclined to participate in revolutionary activities with their “rightful brethren,” the proletariat, but also tend to act as the “bribed tools of reactionary intrigue.”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Lumpenproletariat

---

So... The average person who lacks class consciousness and actively harms the revolution. Are you not arguing that they are in large portion of society?

The lumpenproletariat is not the "average person" at all. It is your incorrect definition that is leading you to think that.

---

Which is when they're at 10% fighting capability? 60%? I argue that this number is very significant, and equally as difficult to determine.

It won't be determined by a percentage, so don't try to reduce this to a numbers game.

[Leninist Haven]

Lumpenproletariat: "essentially parasitical group was largely the remains of older, obsolete stages of social development, and that it could not normally play a progressive role in history. Indeed, because it acted only out of socially ignorant self-interest, the lumpenproletariat was easily bribed by reactionary forces and could be used to combat the true proletariat in its efforts to bring about the end of bourgeois society. Without a clear class-consciousness, the lumpenproletariat could not play a positive role in society. Instead, it exploited society for its own ends, and was in turn exploited as a tool of destruction and reaction."

Bad definition. Here is a better one:
Lumpenproletariat, (German: “rabble proletariat”), according to Karl Marx in The Communist Manifesto, the lowest stratum of the industrial working class, including also such undesirables as tramps and criminals. The members of the Lumpenproletariat—this “social scum,” said Marx—are not only disinclined to participate in revolutionary activities with their “rightful brethren,” the proletariat, but also tend to act as the “bribed tools of reactionary intrigue.”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Lumpenproletariat

The lumpenproletariat is not the "average person" at all. It is your incorrect definition that is leading you to think that.

My apologies, but this is quickly becoming tiring. I clearly stated that I said it was the vast majority of the US and most of post-Cold War Nato's civilians... And if the vast majority of the populace feels it, then it clearly is average. You don't seem to debate this point, and I don't know if you just aren't actively debating it or if you agree with it. I don't see any serious difference between my definition and yours. Both of them say that the worker has no class consciousness. Both of them say that the worker may or may not actively harm the revolution. Can we please move on from this? It is clearly not productive.

It won't be determined by a percentage, so don't try to reduce this to a numbers game.

If we don't agree on that, then I don't see anything else to say on this point. You don't see it as important. I do.

[The New California Republic]

My apologies, but this is quickly becoming tiring. I clearly stated that I said it was the vast majority of the US and most of post-Cold War Nato's civilians... And if the vast majority of the populace feels it, then it clearly is average. You don't seem to debate this point, and I don't know if you just aren't actively debating it or if you agree with it. I don't see any serious difference between my definition and yours. Both of them say that the worker has no class consciousness. Both of them say that the worker may or may not actively harm the revolution. Can we please move on from this? It is clearly not productive.

"Lumpenproletariat" is very specific in terms of who is included in it:

They belonged for the most part to the lumpenproletariat, which forms a mass clearly distinguished from the industrial proletariat in all large cities, a recruiting ground for thieves and criminals of all kinds, living on the refuse of society, people without a fixed line of work.

Alongside ruined roués with questionable means of support and of dubious origin, degenerate and adventurous scions of the bourgeoisie, there were vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged convicts, runaway galley slaves, swindlers, charlatans, lazzaroni, pickpockets, tricksters, gamblers, procurers, brothel keepers, porters, literati, organ grinders, rag-pickers, knife-grinders, tinkers, beggars; in short, the entirely undefined, disintegrating mass, thrown hither and yon, which the French call la bohème.

The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon

Saying that most of the population in the US falls into the lumpenproletariat category is patently absurd. You need to fundamentally distort the meaning of the word in order to make it applicable to most of the population.

[Leninist Haven]

While I generally feel that semantics are important, I don't feel that the argument I was making is even being addressed anymore. I'm not going to continue arguing over whose definition is more apt. I have clearly noted how I defined it, and yet the argument is still based on word choice. I'm sorry if you were looking to debate it, but I feel that the productivity, again, was lost too long ago. I'm not going to post again, so you can accept that as a form of concession. Farewell. I did actually look forward to reading your other arguments on the forums, truth be told.

[The New California Republic]

While I generally feel that semantics are important, I don't feel that the argument I was making is even being addressed anymore.

It pretty much is actually, as your argument began to hinge on your definition of lumpenproletariat as covering most of the population of America...

I'm not going to continue arguing over whose definition is more apt.

Fine.

[Kernen]

Is this sarcastic? I don't seem to understand your point. I don't understand how demonization helps the movement, especially considering that the lumpen is defined as being controlled to attack its own interests quite simply.

No, I genuinely thing all socialist movements and authoritarian efforts should be demonized.

[Tobleste]

I'm not incapable of understanding it. I'm just incapable of seeing how it's important. If your opponent has a gun, you having an APC maximises your ability to defend yourself. If your opponent has one, you having a tank maximises your ability to defend yourself. If your opponent has a rock, you having a cruise missile maximises your ability to defend yourself. Following your logic, every person is entitled to what best allows them to defend yourself which would be the most powerful weapon available. If guns are common, you can best defend yourself with something more dangerous. It's just constant escalation which constantly increases the risk of an accident that kills someone or of a weapon falling into the wrong hands. Your logic makes sense if your right to have the ability to kill someone comes before the good of the community as a whole which is the logic that prevails among American gun advocates. All because you're afraid of a big man beating you up, you want a country where everyone participates in a Mexican stand off and anyone that doesn't is endangering themselves.

Those unarmed people that die from guns easily acquired by those unfit to carry them would disagree with you but who gives a fuck about their lives right?

The most powerful weapon available is not the best weapon for self protection. Nuclear warheads and explosives are shit for self defense. Guns are relatively useful for self defense. I also like how you dismiss my fears of being attacked and killed, given the very real possibikity of sexual minorities being targeted in my state.

Certainly not you, considering how fucking silent you are when the victim was killed with a knife.

So to protect sexual minorities, guns should be made available in a state where they're likely to be targeted? Should we only allow guns to be sold to minorities or only sell guns that can be fired by those minorities? Maybe give every woman a handgun to protect from sexual assault?

Sorry. From now on, I'll message you whenever someone dies.

[Korouse]

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.

Guns are tools. Sometimes english-speaking leftist debate gets too mired in the American idea that guns are some unalienable right, but they forget that guns are so unalienable in America because they were necessary for the protection of individual property largely taken from Native Americans, Mexicans, or even other Euro-Americans. So I believe guns that are made for hunting and recreational activity should be allowed, but clearly, ones designed for war should be illegal in the civilian market under socialism. Before that? I believe they're necessary.

[Big Jim P]

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.

One thing I've noted about socialism/communism: It is always about seizing (stealing) the means of production or redistributing wealth (you would have to steal it before you could redistribute it) or violent revolution. It is always about stealing, never about CREATING anything or peacefully transforming society.

[Plebciclastan]

So I believe guns that are made for hunting and recreational activity should be allowed, but clearly, ones designed for war should be illegal in the civilian market under socialism. Before that? I believe they're necessary.

How would you define 'designed for war'? It would need to be outlined legally if you wished to restrict ownership.

[Ors Might]

The most powerful weapon available is not the best weapon for self protection. Nuclear warheads and explosives are shit for self defense. Guns are relatively useful for self defense. I also like how you dismiss my fears of being attacked and killed, given the very real possibikity of sexual minorities being targeted in my state.

Certainly not you, considering how fucking silent you are when the victim was killed with a knife.

So to protect sexual minorities, guns should be made available in a state where they're likely to be targeted? Should we only allow guns to be sold to minorities or only sell guns that can be fired by those minorities? Maybe give every woman a handgun to protect from sexual assault?

Sorry. From now on, I'll message you whenever someone dies.

Typically, the absence of guns have never helped minorities of any kind. Lynchings, for example, were typically done with the commonly abailable tools of rope and farming equipment. Your gun control would have done shit for dick to protect them. Your logic here is akin to declawing animals to make cats safer against packs of Rottweilers.

With a totally heartfelt speech about how horrified you are and how anyone that doesn’t want knife regulation has no problem whatsoever with people dying. Seems to be your M.O for gun violence.

[Grinning Dragon]

How would you define 'designed for war'? It would need to be outlined legally if you wished to restrict ownership.

Honestly the whole "designed for war" is a stupid metric. Since pretty much 90% of firearms could be used in theater or have history as starting out as a firearm used in combat.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

No, because guns make the counter-revolution more likely to succeed when Socialism inevitably fails.

[Korouse]

How would you define 'designed for war'? It would need to be outlined legally if you wished to restrict ownership.

No full-auto period, probably even go as far as restricting gas-operated systems as well.

[Stiner Repulic]

What????? Im a left wing libertaran and i hate gun well unless it's to defend them against the government

[The New California Republic]

:?: What????? Im a left wing libertaran and i hate gun well unless it's to defend them against the government

...alright...

[Paddy O Fernature]

How would you define 'designed for war'? It would need to be outlined legally if you wished to restrict ownership.

No full-auto period, probably even go as far as restricting gas-operated systems as well.

So... banning a weapon classification that has been used in enough crimes to count on one hand with fingers to spare and arbitrarily going after a design that will accomplish nothing other then drive up the cost and popularity of piston driven system is your answer?

..........

And people wonder why the anti's are not taken seriously.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

:?: What????? Im a left wing libertaran and i hate gun well unless it's to defend them against the government

Libertarian is the exact opposite of Authoritarian.

[Korouse]

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?

I think you don't know what actual Marxist terms mean. "Lumpen" doesn't only refer to the lumpenproletariat, it refers to a broad range of people who've been declassed and you can consider having the brand imprint of their previous class. There can be lumpen petty bourgeoisie, which the NSDAP recruited their mass base from, and if you've read the 18th Brumaire you can even find the term 'lumpen-bourgeoisie' to refer to capitalists that were involved in mostly illegal activity outside of the previous French state's control.

[Risastorstein]

One thing I've noted about socialism/communism: It is always about seizing (stealing) the means of production or redistributing wealth (you would have to steal it before you could redistribute it) or violent revolution. It is always about stealing, never about CREATING anything or peacefully transforming society.

Well, in socialist theory, it's the capitalists (bosses and stuff) who steal from workers. Redistribution is just a way to minimize this. You can peacefully seize the means of production too. Make a law so that employees own 50% (or 51, or 75%, whatever number you want) of big companies (like Amazon). It means that workers will have a say about the decisions of the company. I don't see violence or stealing in that.

Socialism and communism is divided between revolutionaries and reformists. The revolutionaries reject the system as a whole and don't participate in elections whereas reformists do. The former only envision change through violence and the latter believe in a progressive evolution.