NationStates

I'm a Syndicalist/Marxist. So I think Authoritarianist strands of Socialism are doomed to result in Stalinism or Juche from the get go, but in any case I would advocate for freedom to bear arms. It allows the workers to use force to protect their freedom should some Totalitarian regime attempt to take them away. But that is from my heavily anti-authoritarian-Socialist viewpoint in an attempt to strip power from a Socialist or Communist party and maintain the power as in the hands of the workers of a nation. So I don't know for Authoritarian Socialists, but I would imagine if you want to enforce a vanguard party's influence and control over a society to "safeguard" Socialism, it would be somewhat counterintuitive to give them all the power to resist government influence on them. This is how the Soviet Union maintained control, by taking back the arms used by workers in the civil war in 1918 on threat of 10 years imprisonment. But I feel that was one of the downfalls of Leninism and allowed for Stalin to devastate the nation and for his successors to just create State Capitalism.

So I would heavily advise against restricting gun ownership, but that is me trying to mitigate risk of a Totalitarian dictatorship betraying the revolution. So if you actually want to create Authoritarianism, I'd imagine you somehow be pro-gun until after a successful revolution, in which you go back on it and have all weapons seized.

Soviet Tankistan wrote:

Shanhwa wrote:
Republicans are authoritarian now.

Yeah, no.

Marxists are authoritarian according to Republicans yet most Marxists are libertarians, especially now. The Republicans are definitely authoritarian. They support oppression of the down trodden and mistreatment of those disadvantaged from the start. They are anti-democracy and subvert it at every chance. They hate people of a different religion, class, nationality, and race. I don’t agree with Democrats because they are liberal capitalists, but they are the less authoritarian party by far.

Yeah, I don't have time to unpack everything behind the really stupid statement that "most Marxists are Libertarian", so I'll let that alone.

As far as Republicans, Democrats, and Authoritarianism goes, they're pretty similar. Broadly Authoritarian policies such as Drug policy tend to be bipartisan. The exception would be Cannabis and Psilocybin, though there are Democrats who oppose their legalization and Republicans who support their legalization. In general, both parties have been in lockstep with each other with regards to Authoritarian policies.

Asherahan wrote:I am not anti gun.

I am just Anti Semi Auio or Fully Auto anything not a pistol.

You want bolt actions? Sure have at them. Pump Shotguns? Have at them. Semi Auto Pistols with max magazine of 20? Have at them.

Semi auto 22? No fuck you. To gulag you go.

This is actually dumb. If any gun should be banned, it should be pistols. Pistols are used to carry out murders and shooting because they are easily concealed and transported. Semi automatic guns aren’t just really common, they are very useful in any situation that you’d need a gun for good. If you hunting and do not kill the deer on the first shot, you can quickly shoot again. Even if you did ban them, some people are good enough with lever actions that it would be meaningless. With training, they could still be used for shootings. Automatic weapons let people prepare for real war, unless the weapon in question is a pistol. A semi auto 22 lr isn’t dangerous, it’s only for target shooting and rats at most. I doubt you own any guns.

Icelandic Military Junta wrote:Yes

Imagine if the Soviet Union had American gun-laws? They could have beaten the Nazis before they even reached Kiev. Then the people would wake up and realize "Wait, I have guns" and then finally destroy Authoritarian """"""""Socialism""""""""

The Nazis would still get to Kiev, it would just take longer and be bloodier. The Soviet citizens never would have started a popular uprising under Stalin. I can see Khrushchev getting overthrown though.

Scomagia wrote:

Soviet Tankistan wrote:Marxists are authoritarian according to Republicans yet most Marxists are libertarians, especially now. The Republicans are definitely authoritarian. They support oppression of the down trodden and mistreatment of those disadvantaged from the start. They are anti-democracy and subvert it at every chance. They hate people of a different religion, class, nationality, and race. I don’t agree with Democrats because they are liberal capitalists, but they are the less authoritarian party by far.

Yeah, I don't have time to unpack everything behind the really stupid statement that "most Marxists are Libertarian", so I'll let that alone.

As far as Republicans, Democrats, and Authoritarianism goes, they're pretty similar. Broadly Authoritarian policies such as Drug policy tend to be bipartisan. The exception would be Cannabis and Psilocybin, though there are Democrats who oppose their legalization and Republicans who support their legalization. In general, both parties have been in lockstep with each other with regards to Authoritarian policies.

Most Marxists right now are in fact libertarian Marxists/socialists and I’m not one for sure. The statement that Democrats are as authoritarian as Republicans is the stupid one. Even accounting for workers right and such being “authoritarian”, the Republicans easily win with their views. And protecting people from cocaine is not authoritarian.

Soviet Tankistan wrote:

Scomagia wrote:Yeah, I don't have time to unpack everything behind the really stupid statement that "most Marxists are Libertarian", so I'll let that alone.

As far as Republicans, Democrats, and Authoritarianism goes, they're pretty similar. Broadly Authoritarian policies such as Drug policy tend to be bipartisan. The exception would be Cannabis and Psilocybin, though there are Democrats who oppose their legalization and Republicans who support their legalization. In general, both parties have been in lockstep with each other with regards to Authoritarian policies.

Most Marxists right now are in fact libertarian Marxists/socialists and I’m not one for sure. The statement that Democrats are as authoritarian as Republicans is the stupid one. Even accounting for workers right and such being “authoritarian”, the Republicans easily win with their views. And protecting people from cocaine is not authoritarian.

So Republicans are more Authoritarian because you say so? Make an actual argument. Show, don't tell.

Scomagia wrote:

Soviet Tankistan wrote:Most Marxists right now are in fact libertarian Marxists/socialists and I’m not one for sure. The statement that Democrats are as authoritarian as Republicans is the stupid one. Even accounting for workers right and such being “authoritarian”, the Republicans easily win with their views. And protecting people from cocaine is not authoritarian.

So Republicans are more Authoritarian because you say so? Make an actual argument. Show, don't tell.

I will get back with my own writing later, but here are some articles.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 0d7c185c06
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 1481744e4e
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 3da0626b0a
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 6011aabb74
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/10/opin ... -grab.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/opin ... tract.html
Here is some of what they are attacking:
-workers rights
-black rights
-homosexual rights
-voter rights
-women’s rights
-Hispanic rights
-transgender rights
-the basic rules of the government
-the right to free press
-free speech of leftists
-anti-racism and anti-fascism
-human rights in other countries
-free trade

Puczovska wrote:I'm a Syndicalist/Marxist. So I think Authoritarianist strands of Socialism are doomed to result in Stalinism or Juche from the get go, but in any case I would advocate for freedom to bear arms. It allows the workers to use force to protect their freedom should some Totalitarian regime attempt to take them away. But that is from my heavily anti-authoritarian-Socialist viewpoint in an attempt to strip power from a Socialist or Communist party and maintain the power as in the hands of the workers of a nation. So I don't know for Authoritarian Socialists, but I would imagine if you want to enforce a vanguard party's influence and control over a society to "safeguard" Socialism, it would be somewhat counterintuitive to give them all the power to resist government influence on them. This is how the Soviet Union maintained control, by taking back the arms used by workers in the civil war in 1918 on threat of 10 years imprisonment. But I feel that was one of the downfalls of Leninism and allowed for Stalin to devastate the nation and for his successors to just create State Capitalism.

So I would heavily advise against restricting gun ownership, but that is me trying to mitigate risk of a Totalitarian dictatorship betraying the revolution. So if you actually want to create Authoritarianism, I'd imagine you somehow be pro-gun until after a successful revolution, in which you go back on it and have all weapons seized.

I’m not totalitarian, only statist with an authoritarian leaning.

Asherahan wrote:

Mushet wrote: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.

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

Soviet Tankistan wrote:

Scomagia wrote:So Republicans are more Authoritarian because you say so? Make an actual argument. Show, don't tell.

I will get back with my own writing later, but here are some articles.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 0d7c185c06
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 1481744e4e
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 3da0626b0a
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 6011aabb74
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/10/opin ... -grab.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/opin ... tract.html
Here is some of what they are attacking:
-workers rights
-black rights
-homosexual rights
-voter rights
-Hispanic rights
-transgender rights
-the basic rules of the government
-the right to free press
-free speech of leftists
-anti-racism and anti-fascism
-human rights in other countries

Dude, a bunch of opinion pieces don't really count as "evidence". Those articles in the opinion sections for a reason: they're heavily biased and attempts at rhetoric, not straight reporting.

Show us the actual policies you're referring to.

Scomagia wrote:

Soviet Tankistan wrote:I will get back with my own writing later, but here are some articles.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 0d7c185c06
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 1481744e4e
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 3da0626b0a
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 6011aabb74
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/10/opin ... -grab.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/opin ... tract.html
Here is some of what they are attacking:
-workers rights
-black rights
-homosexual rights
-voter rights
-Hispanic rights
-transgender rights
-the basic rules of the government
-the right to free press
-free speech of leftists
-anti-racism and anti-fascism
-human rights in other countries

Dude, a bunch of opinion pieces don't really count as "evidence". Those articles in the opinion sections for a reason: they're heavily biased and attempts at rhetoric, not straight reporting.

Show us the actual policies you're referring to.

Sure, skip literally everything and just go “The Washington Post and New York Times are biased as fuck and legitimate evidence in their authoritarian sentiment as well as weakening the system meant to protect human rights is complete made up bullshit propaganda!” instead of addressing anything. I don’t think this is worth my time, it not worthwhile if you refuse to acknowledge anything. It’s like the Bolsheviks weren’t authoritarian then denying anything that says likewise.

Soviet Tankistan wrote:

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

What? Putting a shovel on an AK is stupid.

What if it was rail mounted, and quickly detachable?

Soviet Tankistan wrote:

Scomagia wrote:Dude, a bunch of opinion pieces don't really count as "evidence". Those articles in the opinion sections for a reason: they're heavily biased and attempts at rhetoric, not straight reporting.

Show us the actual policies you're referring to.

Sure, skip literally everything and just go “The Washington Post and New York Times are biased as fuck and legitimate evidence in their authoritarian sentiment as well as weakening the system meant to protect human rights is complete made up bullshit propaganda!” instead of addressing anything. I don’t think this is worth my time, it not worthwhile if you refuse to acknowledge anything. It’s like the Bolsheviks weren’t authoritarian then denying anything that says likewise.

It’s not invalid to ask that you show the actual policies you’re referring to instead of linking to opinion pieces.

Soviet Tankistan wrote:

Scomagia wrote:Dude, a bunch of opinion pieces don't really count as "evidence". Those articles in the opinion sections for a reason: they're heavily biased and attempts at rhetoric, not straight reporting.

Show us the actual policies you're referring to.

Sure, skip literally everything and just go “The Washington Post and New York Times are biased as fuck and legitimate evidence in their authoritarian sentiment as well as weakening the system meant to protect human rights is complete made up bullshit propaganda!” instead of addressing anything.

That isn't what I did. I rejected the validity of posting opinion pieces. I'm interested in what you have to say, not what some random politico has to say in the opinion section. Please, show us the relevant policies to which you are referring. And a further quibble I have with your sources; aside from being opinion pieces, is that they're behind a pay wall.

I don’t think this is worth my time, it not worthwhile if you refuse to acknowledge anything. It’s like the Bolsheviks weren’t authoritarian then denying anything that says likewise.

I'm not refusing to acknowledge anything. I am asking you to demonstrate proof of your statements, rather than directing me to someone's rhetoric. If your opinion is well founded then you shouldn't have any problems laying down evidence of Authoritarian policies from Republicans that haven't received bipartisan support.

Ors Might wrote:

Soviet Tankistan wrote:Sure, skip literally everything and just go “The Washington Post and New York Times are biased as fuck and legitimate evidence in their authoritarian sentiment as well as weakening the system meant to protect human rights is complete made up bullshit propaganda!” instead of addressing anything. I don’t think this is worth my time, it not worthwhile if you refuse to acknowledge anything. It’s like the Bolsheviks weren’t authoritarian then denying anything that says likewise.

It’s not invalid to ask that you show the actual policies you’re referring to instead of linking to opinion pieces.

Opinion pieces behind a paywall, no less.

I'm currently pro-gun control and am unlikely to change my opinion unless I'm given proof that a revolution would have a good chance of succeeding but an idea I had was community arsenals that is guarded and, in the time of conflict, distributed locally.

Soviet Tankistan wrote: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.

Pretty much sums it up. But back to our side I think I prefer the term Conservative Socialists.

Legal gun ownership is antithetical to authoritarianism, so that'd be pretty ironic.

Soviet Tankistan wrote: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.

Soviet Tankistan wrote:

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

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

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

Asherahan wrote:

Mushet wrote: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.

The primary goal of every state should be to protect the lives of its citizens, no?

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

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

The primary goal of every state should be to protect the lives of its citizens, no?

The primary goal of any state is continuing its existence protecting ones citizens is one of jobs it has but to a point.

Asherahan wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:The primary goal of every state should be to protect the lives of its citizens, no?

The primary goal of any state is continuing its existence protecting ones citizens is one of jobs it has but to a point.

If a state has a choice between continuing itself and protecting its citizens, it must choose the latter.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Asherahan wrote:The primary goal of any state is continuing its existence protecting ones citizens is one of jobs it has but to a point.

If a state has a choice between continuing itself and protecting its citizens, it must choose the latter.

Tell me once in the entirety of the human history where this has happened?

Asherahan wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:If a state has a choice between continuing itself and protecting its citizens, it must choose the latter.

Tell me once in the entirety of the human history where this has happened?

Tell you where a state has had to choose between continuing itself and serving the people or when it has chosen the latter?

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Asherahan wrote:Tell me once in the entirety of the human history where this has happened?

Tell you where a state has had to choose between continuing itself and serving the people or when it has chosen the latter?

Every single time a revolt, revolution or popular uprising has ever happened.