Gun Control 2022 (IV) - Gun Rights, Control, & Government

[Chernoslavia]

Any economic system where you take away people's private businesses and hand them over to a central government or common collective or the public or whatever you like to call them. It's not going to happen.

How wrong you are. Socialism means giving ownership of the means of production to the workers when considering its fundamental, unchangeable tenet. The central government is not required. Market economies do not necessarily go away. What it does mean is eradicating the capitalist workplace hierarchy and wage labor. Profits in a business are to be allocated equally or by democratic processes. Each worker has a say in how a business conducts its affairs.

What does this yield? It greatly reduces income inequality, makes the common worker more motivated, gives them ownership over the products they create. The so-called "free-market" is truly accessible to the worker, as opposed to a tiny elite. It also reduces government expenditure, as governments spend less on inefficient damage control solutions to problems that capitalism created.

Except I'm not. Every form of Socialism is oppressive and will sooner or later require a centralized government to take control. Cope.

Yeah, everyone becomes equally fucking poor. Wonderful.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Recent polling disagrees. Among 18-34 year olds capitalism is viewed with 46% negativity and 49% positivity. Even Republicans aren't exempt from this trend, only 66% of young Republicans view capitalism positively. 41% of overall American adults view socialism in a positive light so it's not too crazy to guess that in a decade or so socialism will have more popular support than capitalism among several key demographics.

As the article points out discerning the exact meanings of these terms in an American context can be hard because of the past century of propaganda and distortion the common non-political people have been fed but in general left wing economics enjoy wide support nowadays, even among right wingers.

And exactly how much of them know exactly what Socialism is?

Both the article and my post address this. While it's impossible to say for sure what can be gleaned is that general left wing ideas enjoy broad bipartisan support. Even a majority of Republicans for example support the federal government taking steps to reduce wealth inequality.

[Greater Cesnica]

Recent polling disagrees. Among 18-34 year olds capitalism is viewed with 46% negativity and 49% positivity. Even Republicans aren't exempt from this trend, only 66% of young Republicans view capitalism positively. 41% of overall American adults view socialism in a positive light so it's not too crazy to guess that in a decade or so socialism will have more popular support than capitalism among several key demographics.

As the article points out discerning the exact meanings of these terms in an American context can be hard because of the past century of propaganda and distortion the common non-political people have been fed but in general left wing economics enjoy wide support nowadays, even among right wingers.

And not enough to make much of a difference, I'm not worried about a bunch of SRA larpers in furry costumes and who lack discipline trying to take away my private property and investments. And exactly how much of them know exactly what Socialism is?

Socialism also does not equal the removal of private property. What it does equal is the transfer of ownership of productive property. This usually entails manufacturing assets or workplace property. This transfer is from the boss to the workforce as a whole. No, your guns are not going to be taken. Neither is your toothbrush. Or your TV. Or your laptop, or sofa, etc. Even if you're an independent entrepreneur, and possess productive property, that won't be taken, because you own productive property that you also produce from yourself. If a small business already operates in a democratic fashion, then nothing changes there either.

[Greater Cesnica]

How wrong you are. Socialism means giving ownership of the means of production to the workers when considering its fundamental, unchangeable tenet. The central government is not required. Market economies do not necessarily go away. What it does mean is eradicating the capitalist workplace hierarchy and wage labor. Profits in a business are to be allocated equally or by democratic processes. Each worker has a say in how a business conducts its affairs.

What does this yield? It greatly reduces income inequality, makes the common worker more motivated, gives them ownership over the products they create. The so-called "free-market" is truly accessible to the worker, as opposed to a tiny elite. It also reduces government expenditure, as governments spend less on inefficient damage control solutions to problems that capitalism created.

Except I'm not. Every form of Socialism is oppressive and will sooner or later require a centralized government to take control. Cope.

Yeah, everyone becomes equally fucking poor. Wonderful.

>he thinks Makhnovia, Revolutionary Catalonia, the Zapatista territories, and Rojava were/are oppressive

kek

Also,
>everyone becomes equally fucking poor.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Chernoslavia]

And not enough to make much of a difference, I'm not worried about a bunch of SRA larpers in furry costumes and who lack discipline trying to take away my private property and investments. And exactly how much of them know exactly what Socialism is?

Socialism also does not equal the removal of private property. What it does equal is the transfer of ownership of productive property. This usually entails manufacturing assets or workplace property. This transfer is from the boss to the workforce as a whole. No, your guns are not going to be taken. Neither is your toothbrush. Or your TV. Or your laptop, or sofa, etc. Even if you're an independent entrepreneur, and possess productive property, that won't be taken, because you own productive property that you also produce from yourself. If a small business already operates in a democratic fashion, then nothing changes there either.

Private property is fucking private property, enough with the ''muh productive property isn't private property'' bullshit!

[Chernoslavia]

Except I'm not. Every form of Socialism is oppressive and will sooner or later require a centralized government to take control. Cope.

Yeah, everyone becomes equally fucking poor. Wonderful.

>he thinks Makhnovia, Revolutionary Catalonia, the Zapatista territories, and Rojava were/are oppressive

kek

Also,
>everyone becomes equally fucking poor.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Cuba, Venezuela, Maoist China.

[Greater Cesnica]

Socialism also does not equal the removal of private property. What it does equal is the transfer of ownership of productive property. This usually entails manufacturing assets or workplace property. This transfer is from the boss to the workforce as a whole. No, your guns are not going to be taken. Neither is your toothbrush. Or your TV. Or your laptop, or sofa, etc. Even if you're an independent entrepreneur, and possess productive property, that won't be taken, because you own productive property that you also produce from yourself. If a small business already operates in a democratic fashion, then nothing changes there either.

Private property is fucking private property, enough with the ''muh productive property isn't private property'' bullshit!

>he doesn't want to learn or accept the distinction between the two
>tells me to cope

whew

[Greater Cesnica]

>he thinks Makhnovia, Revolutionary Catalonia, the Zapatista territories, and Rojava were/are oppressive

kek

Also,
>everyone becomes equally fucking poor.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Cuba, Venezuela, Maoist China.

No no, you said every form of socialism. I gave you examples of places that are/were not oppressive places to be.

[Chernoslavia]

And exactly how much of them know exactly what Socialism is?

Both the article and my post address this. While it's impossible to say for sure what can be gleaned is that general left wing ideas enjoy broad bipartisan support. Even a majority of Republicans for example support the federal government taking steps to reduce wealth inequality.

Being in support of welfare systems and social safety nets or taxation isn't supporting Socialism.

[Germanic Templars]

>he thinks Makhnovia, Revolutionary Catalonia, the Zapatista territories, and Rojava were/are oppressive

kek

Also,
>everyone becomes equally fucking poor.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Cuba, Venezuela, Maoist China.

And USSR - until Gorb got involved, then the USSR had its first "millionaire" (or rubleair whatever the currency is like Monopoly money like the Argentinian Peso).

[Chernoslavia]

Cuba, Venezuela, Maoist China.

No no, you said every form of socialism. I gave you examples of places that are/were not oppressive places to be.

Literally none of those places were countries. Stop fucking bullshitting.

[Germanic Templars]

Both the article and my post address this. While it's impossible to say for sure what can be gleaned is that general left wing ideas enjoy broad bipartisan support. Even a majority of Republicans for example support the federal government taking steps to reduce wealth inequality.

Being in support of welfare systems and social safety nets or taxation isn't supporting Socialism.

Stop saying the quiet part loud! How else is socialism suppose to look good? Perhaps having higher standards on giving guns to the people who be a good start.

[Washington Resistance Army]

>he thinks Makhnovia, Revolutionary Catalonia, the Zapatista territories, and Rojava were/are oppressive

kek

Also,
>everyone becomes equally fucking poor.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Cuba, Venezuela, Maoist China.

70 years ago China was an agricultural backwater where most people lived in rural villages and couldn't read. There's a long list of things to complain about when it comes to the PRC, but they've done better than most any government in known human history when it comes to improving the lives of their citizens. In actually a single lifetime they went from the aforementioned nation to arguably the leading global superpower that is on the cutting edge of a wide array of fields and possesses the largest economy on the planet.

[Greater Cesnica]

Both the article and my post address this. While it's impossible to say for sure what can be gleaned is that general left wing ideas enjoy broad bipartisan support. Even a majority of Republicans for example support the federal government taking steps to reduce wealth inequality.

Being in support of welfare systems and social safety nets or taxation isn't supporting Socialism.

Welfare systems and social safety nets are damage control methods devised by the capitalist system to keep it afloat. Just like the New Deal was. This is indicative of dissatisfaction with capitalism on behalf of the populace.

[Chernoslavia]

Cuba, Venezuela, Maoist China.

And USSR - until Gorb got involved, then the USSR had its first "millionaire" (or rubleair whatever the currency is like Monopoly money like the Argentinian Peso).

And first McDonald's

[Chernoslavia]

Being in support of welfare systems and social safety nets or taxation isn't supporting Socialism.

Welfare systems and social safety nets are damage control methods devised by the capitalist system to keep it afloat. Just like the New Deal was. This is indicative of dissatisfaction with capitalism on behalf of the populace.

[Greater Cesnica]

No no, you said every form of socialism. I gave you examples of places that are/were not oppressive places to be.

Literally none of those places were countries. Stop fucking bullshitting.

These examples are of large-scale implementations of socialism. On the local level, socialism already flourishes de facto all across the world.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Welfare systems and social safety nets are damage control methods devised by the capitalist system to keep it afloat. Just like the New Deal was. This is indicative of dissatisfaction with capitalism on behalf of the populace.

He's not wrong, though? Welfare in the west was explicitly designed by Prussian aristocrats to stop socialists from gaining popularity. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's just historical fact.

[Greater Cesnica]

Welfare systems and social safety nets are damage control methods devised by the capitalist system to keep it afloat. Just like the New Deal was. This is indicative of dissatisfaction with capitalism on behalf of the populace.

Okay, provide a rebuttal to my points then. Otherwise, you're just incapable of actually refuting anything I say.

Being in support of welfare systems and social safety nets or taxation isn't supporting Socialism.

Stop saying the quiet part loud! How else is socialism suppose to look good? Perhaps having higher standards on giving guns to the people who be a good start.

Bear in mind that neither WRA and I support disarmament. Quite to the contrary actually.

[Chernoslavia]

Literally none of those places were countries. Stop fucking bullshitting.

These examples are of large-scale implementations of socialism. On the local level, socialism already flourishes de facto all across the world.

''large scale'' Yeah OK buddy. Also, please provide evidence that these societies were as free as you like to claim they were.

[Chernoslavia]

Cuba, Venezuela, Maoist China.

70 years ago China was an agricultural backwater where most people lived in rural villages and couldn't read. There's a long list of things to complain about when it comes to the PRC, but they've done better than most any government in known human history when it comes to improving the lives of their citizens. In actually a single lifetime they went from the aforementioned nation to arguably the leading global superpower that is on the cutting edge of a wide array of fields and possesses the largest economy on the planet.

They've only became a superpower and helped people get out of poverty when they've abandoned their Communist ideals. China is only Communist in name only.

[Germanic Templars]

Cuba, Venezuela, Maoist China.

70 years ago China was an agricultural backwater where most people lived in rural villages and couldn't read. There's a long list of things to complain about when it comes to the PRC, but they've done better than most any government in known human history when it comes to improving the lives of their citizens. In actually a single lifetime they went from the aforementioned nation to arguably the leading global superpower that is on the cutting edge of a wide array of fields and possesses the largest economy on the planet.

tbf, they only really took off after 5 things (that I can name off the top of my head):
1) Mao died and his successors reversed his shit policies that got a lot of people killed
2) American economy opened up to them after the Sino-Soviet split.
3) Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics^tm
4) Stealing from other nations does help in catching up to other nations
5) treating the general population like slave labor does also wonders at building a nation.

[Chernoslavia]

Okay, provide a rebuttal to my points then. Otherwise, you're just incapable of actually refuting anything I say.

Stop saying the quiet part loud! How else is socialism suppose to look good? Perhaps having higher standards on giving guns to the people who be a good start.

Bear in mind that neither WRA and I support disarmament. Quite to the contrary actually.

I'm sure he's aware of that, we've both seen you defend the right to bear arms. I even used one of your articles to shut down an argument on YT.

[Washington Resistance Army]

70 years ago China was an agricultural backwater where most people lived in rural villages and couldn't read. There's a long list of things to complain about when it comes to the PRC, but they've done better than most any government in known human history when it comes to improving the lives of their citizens. In actually a single lifetime they went from the aforementioned nation to arguably the leading global superpower that is on the cutting edge of a wide array of fields and possesses the largest economy on the planet.

They've only became a superpower and helped people get out of poverty when they've abandoned their Communist ideals.

From an ideological standpoint they haven't abandoned them. While it would take too long to explain in a simple post China's methods aren't particularly out of the norm for Marxist-Leninist historiography and views on how the revolution should develop. Fascinating topic really, even if I'm not a Marxist.

[Germanic Templars]

He's not wrong, though? Welfare in the west was explicitly designed by Prussian aristocrats to stop socialists from gaining popularity. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's just historical fact.

At the end of the day, capitalism - private enterprises that create and distribute goods and resources (ie not command economy system that socialism & communism are prescribed as with their methods)- is still widely implemented. That said, don't see how any of this deals with gun control. Unless you wanna debate which provides better care in gun manufacturing or something along those lines.