commies are pro gun?

[Keith Wheeler]

Lenin on guns:

...

The communist gameplan is first to have a violent revolution against the state, then create a "dictatorship of the proletariat" that redistributes all wealth. Marx said that after wealth redistribution was finished, the dictatorship would wither away and leave behind a utopian classless society where everyone supported each other.

Lenin was a dreamer. And unfortunately not the only one.


(apologies to the guy with the similar sounding name -- he may have been a socialist, but at least he didn't support it through violent means)

 

[wooderson]

To modify my statement a bit: all states wish to disarm their opposition - whether that's internal (Nazis disarming Jews - Hitler's minions had little problem with good Aryans owning guns - they actually loosened restrictions for them, a notable difference with blanket gun control) or external (insurgents - or Iran with nukes if you want to go bigger).

 

[QuestionEverything]

Lenin was a dreamer. And unfortunately not the only one.

Your point being? That was the same thing I said.

 

[Bob M.]

"George W. Bush said he would sign the AWB if it got to his desk." Thus, he is a communist.

Why do people keep saying this? You know all to well that Dubya said this to get the control freaks off his back. He knew that there was no way that It was gonna reach his desk.

 

[CWL]

All I know is that in Cambodia, 1 in 3 people own a firearm. But what do I know, i've only lived & worked there. It's still a communist nation as far as I can tell.

Seemed that people in Laos had guns too.

Hong Kong is the most capitalist city in the world -still. But what do I know, I've only worked there several times over the course of 20 years. The poor people there are mostly illegals hopping the border for a better opportunity in life -sound familiar with USA? And yes, you can own guns in HK. Typically, they have to be registered and kept in the Shooting Club that you would have to belong to. Illegal guns are available, smuggled-in from China and the Phillipines.

You can own guns in China, typically not military firearms, and you can hunt there.

 

[razorburn]

Hong Kong which is considered its own little country is VERY strictly Communist. The rest of china is sociolist. Hong Kong is you know the usual, keep the serfs in mud huts. While the upper class and politicians live in million dollar pent houses. Also I don't believe Chinese citizens are allowed to own a firearm of any kind. I know this from when the NRA made a big stink about their Olympic pistol team having to practice with airsoft guns. The rest of china has a very good economy, built with of course U.S. citizens money earned from the crap you buy at Wal-Mart. But now the sweat shops are moving to the Phillipines and North Korea since Chinese labor is begining to cost more.

Do you know anything about Hong Kong at all? Why do you spout this stuff? I'm from Hong Kong. I was there this summer. Firstly, as Ben already pointed out, there's no mud huts in Hong Kong. Nowhere. The whole city is nothing but skyscrapers. There's no serfs working on farms for feudal lords. There's no farms at all. It's an extremely high tech city. Land is at an incredible premium, and even small tracts are very expensive. It's a special adminstrative region, with far fewer restrictions than China. There's no restrictions on media, you can access this site and all the other dirty captialist propaganda you want. Capitalism was greatly faciliated as there were basically no licensing required to sell your own goods. Just take your goods and set up shop. Firearms are still heavily restricted, as in China. This is where the "peasants" live, in their "mud huts"

This is where I stayed, in central In an $8 million U.S. dollar/year penthouse paid for by my uncle's company, on old mountain peak road. This is like when foreigners say that America is extremely wild and violent place, with cowboys chasing hookers and blowing away bartenders with six shooters.

 

[USSR]

"George W. Bush said he would sign the AWB if it got to his desk." Thus, he is a communist.

Why do people keep saying this? You know all to well that Dubya said this to get the control freaks off his back. He knew that there was no way that It was gonna reach his desk.

Have seen the Bush quote time and time again by the politically ignorant. As Bob said, with a Republican controlled Congress, Bush knew there would never be anything to sign. To those of you who cannot grasp this, come to me in the next 5 minutes, and I will give you $1,000.

Don

 

[Zoogster]

As others have said they are only pro gun to get into power, and then want to limit any potential for counter revolution or resistance to agents of the state implementing new radical policies.

Because very few of the people that use the word "communist" actually know what it means. In US it has become a generic insult, sort of like "idiot" is no longer a medical term.

This is exactly correct, and fortunate for us in America. Communism is an insult, a negative word in America and so few actualy know its true meaning or would ever see thier own beliefs as communist, and if they did would not label it as such.

Communism is actualy very appealing to the working class and poor in society because it is the highest level of a handout society possible. It has the principle that everyone will contribute to society, and all will recieve equal reward. On paper and in theory it sounds good, however it does not work for many reasons. It reduces any motivation, for what is the point of education or spending years earning nothing to become a doctor when you can pump gas right away and earn the same amount, and actualy more because you would have been workign for longer? It also kills motivation for people to actualy be productive because what is the incentive to earn a promotion if every position makes the same amount of money and lives the same quality of life. People also judge thier success in life quite often by how thier lifestyles compare to thier peers' lifestyles, if they have the same lifestyle then they cannot feel unique or that they are doing better than anyone else, which is a strong motivator for many. Also it creates a very obvious elite class because those that run society will not tolerate recieving an equal share in such a poor economy and society.

So it is actualy beneficial to our society in many ways that the very word "communist" brings up images of big evil Soviet Empires or we would likely see it supported and favored throughout a segment of the population.

However socialist policies are alive and strong in America for the same reason. Welfare, social security, grants for those that qualify based on income level or ethnicity, etc. In fact half or more of many state budgets are for public schools, they give equaly to everyone regardless of who contributes more in taxes, so people from neighborhoods where the average person pays no taxes, or children of illegals that pay no taxes, have the school resources divided to them as much as those from families contributing a lot in taxes, which is why public school systems are often such a disgrace even though they account of over 50% of the state budget.

However unlike communism, socialism actualy works as long as there is enough people/successful businesses to steal/take from to give to the less fortunate. However once the less fortunate is a large segment of your population, then it begins to collapses in on itself, but the handout crowd still can outvote those they wish to take from.

If you were to average the expenses of someone that has to pay/save for thier children's college education, give nearly half of thier paycheck in taxes, and qualifies for little to no aid etc, with someone whose children get free education through college if they desire, and pay little to no taxes, and have many aid options, then those making 2-3x more cash often don't have that much more in spending money. However it appears that way because the "less fortunate" tend to spend more on weekly parties, and drugs and other "hobbies" that are very costly and leave no tangible material wealth in the person's possession, or focus on material wealth that depreciates in value like expensive vehicles, like the hip hop culture promotes for a flash and dash lifestyle. So the difference is small due to socialist policies, but the appearant difference is still great because of spending decisions and lifestyles.

 

[HiroProX]

Well having posed this question to a friend, who happens to rather enjoy his range time, who is a marxist he was rather blunt. "The proletariat must have guns, it's the only way to keep the revolution honest."

So yes, defining marxists as "anti-gun" is a bit of a stereotype. But Leninists, Stalinists, and Maoists are indeed anti-gun, but most marxists who actually know their Marx are rather pro-gun.

 

[quatin]

Do you know anything about Hong Kong at all? Why do you spout this stuff? I'm from Hong Kong. I was there this summer. Firstly, as Ben already pointed out, there's no mud huts in Hong Kong. Nowhere. The whole city is nothing but skyscrapers. There's no serfs working on farms for feudal lords. There's no farms at all. It's an extremely high tech city. Land is at an incredible premium, and even small tracts are very expensive. It's a special adminstrative region, with far fewer restrictions than China. There's no restrictions on media, you can access this site and all the other dirty captialist propaganda you want. Capitalism was greatly faciliated as there were basically no licensing required to sell your own goods. Just take your goods and set up shop. Firearms are still heavily restricted, as in China. This is where the "peasants" live, in their "mud huts"

This is exactly what he said. Hong Kong is a land where a handful of the population gorge on wealth and the rest meddle in poverty. The city caters to foreign investors and tourists. Not everyone could afford to live in skyscrapers and own land there. Income disparity in Hong Kong is insane, property and cost of living is worse than New York. Poverty is like 25%.

http://www.hkcss.org.hk/pra/ecp/pov_rate_91-05.pdf

 

[QuestionEverything]

Zoogster, your post isn't very accurate. Socialism isn't a milder form of communism. Socialism is the economic policy that the state should control all commerce, and socialism does not include a system of government. You can have a socialist democracy, a socialist monarchy or a socialist dictatorship. Note that the USSR never claimed to be communist country; they were the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics." Communism is socialism plus Marx's system of government or lack thereof. Marx believed that after the revolution had stripped away all vestiges of the capitalist system, government would be obsolete and everyone would live in self-governing communes through some supernatural suspension of human nature. But as real-life revolutionaries found out, humans aren't so eager to relinquish power once they've taken hold of it. Every major industrialized nation today has an economic policy that is a mix of capitalism and socialism, though the ratios differ somewhat.

 

[wooderson]

Socialism is the economic policy that the state should control all commerce

Messr. Proudhon would like a word with you. (And Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, et al.)

 

[wooderson]

Communism is actualy very appealing to the working class and poor in society because it is the highest level of a handout society possible.

It's not so much a 'handout' when the aristocrats are on the guillotine (metaphorically speaking), you know?

Anyway, you forget the essential Marxist dictum - "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." In a Communist society, there are no 'handouts' - everyone works. In certain regimes this is taken to a rather grave extreme.

The modern concept of the 'safety net' exists primarily, perhaps only, under welfare capitalism.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Sandanista-era Nicaragua was a work-in-progress, so it's hard to make a blanket statement on its government, but most of its political leaders were hard-core Marxists. Certainly, Ortega was a Marxist in those days. Gun ownership was not only allowed, but encouraged for anyone at risk from the terrorism of the Contras. Select-fire military AKs were provided free by the government to farmers and others working in the countryside.

 

[razorburn]

This is exactly what he said. Hong Kong is a land where a handful of the population gorge on wealth and the rest meddle in poverty. The city caters to foreign investors and tourists. Not everyone could afford to live in skyscrapers and own land there. Income disparity in Hong Kong is insane, property and cost of living is worse than New York. Poverty is like 25%.

Yes, everybody does live in skyscrapers because that's all there is there. My grandmother on my mothers side was from a refuge village which developed after the Chinese civil war. They had homes they'd built once, but it was taken by the government and they were given gov't owned housing, enormous apartment complexes. There are no "mud huts" like he says. There are no mud huts in Hong Kong. Pretty much nobody owns land there, it all belongs to companies and corps. The cost of food and things are MUCH cheaper than in the U.S. You can get a 3 course meal for cost of two U.S dollars, an appetizer, a meal of noodles and beef, and a desert.

The poverty line is also influenced by the number of live-in house workers. Pretty much all the middle class have live-in house workers, their official level of pay might count as poverty level, but they live in their hosts homes at no charge which greatly offsets this. Housing is the greatest cost of living in Hong Kong. There are definately poor people there. You can sometimes see old men and women begging in the streets. But it's nothing like you're making it sound. Like there's a small number of elite, wealthy individuals and everyone is begging in dirt roads. There aren't any mud huts or dirt roads in Hong Kong. The family on my father's side are very wealthy, all heads of large corporations living in very expensive homes. The ones on my mom's side are not as well off, living in compensated housing. Wealth there is definately more polarized than in the U.S. But walk through the malls and you see people have enough to eat. They have nice clothes. For those who drive, the streets are filled with Rolls Royce, Mercedes, BMW and other luxury brands. The cost of owning a car is high, in terms of gas and storage and such. The actual vehicles are half of what they cost in the states. Clothing, food cost a fraction of what they do in the states.

I'm not a foreign tourist. I have citizenship there as well as my US citizenship. I've lived poor there when I was a kid. We didn't even have running water. I've also lived richly there as an adult, in a multimillion dollar penthouse with my own chauffeur, maids, yacht club membership and all, drinking expensive wines and eating at expensive restaurants. Don't tell me how hong kong is.

 

[Professor K]

Hey, CWL, mind telling us more about the gun laws (or lack thereof) in Cambodia? It sounds cool, I see videos of random tourists going to Cambodia to shoot things.

Are there laws and people just dont follow or care about them?

And in Hong Kong, it's so communist, that car drives you!

 

[CWL]

Professor K,

Yes, there are firearms laws in Cambodia, it is enforcement that is lacking. Typically, like in Iraq, families are allowed one firearm per family for protection, but there is no formal registration & records so who really knows how many guns are left-overs from the 50-years of war there. Open carry is generally frowned-up in Phnom Penh unless you are a VIP with bodyguards. Outside of PP, it is common to carry & have guards. Guns are for sale (US currency) in PP's downtown Russian market, I think AKMs are going for US$300 (wood stock), folders are a little-bit more. Cash & carry. They really like S&W stainless pistols because of the humidity, but I've seen lots of S&W .38s carried- and Glock 19s & Glock17s are showing up for the wealthy as status items. Common Chicom/sovblok weaponry are always available. I did not carry during my times there, but I had armed escorts.

Yes, I shot a cow with an RPG once, but I was drunk and tripping on magic pizza at the time.

 

[Professor K]

Magic pizza, alcohol, shooting an RPG at a cow, it's a wonder Disneyland even stays in business.

Thanks for the info.

 

[DakotaDude]

If all you want to do is hurl insults at people with opposing views, go ahead and call them "commies," "socialists," "fascists," "hoplophobes," "sheeple," or whatever you want. But such labels are not useful if you actually want to understand their views and express your own.

There is no clear boundary between pro-gun and anti-gun beliefs on the political spectrum. There are plenty of pro-gun Democrats and anti-gun Republicans. Remember that every time you insult people on "the left," you are insulting people who are pro-gun, or who could be persuaded to be pro-gun. I don't see how that is helpful to our cause.

 

[SaMx]

Hong Kong which is considered its own little country is VERY strictly Communist. The rest of china is sociolist. Hong Kong is you know the usual, keep the serfs in mud huts. While the upper class and politicians live in million dollar pent houses. Also I don't believe Chinese citizens are allowed to own a firearm of any kind. I know this from when the NRA made a big stink about their Olympic pistol team having to practice with airsoft guns. The rest of china has a very good economy, built with of course U.S. citizens money earned from the crap you buy at Wal-Mart. But now the sweat shops are moving to the Phillipines and North Korea since Chinese labor is begining to cost more.

I think you are in some ways very right, and in some ways very wrong.
from wikipedia

Hong Kong's economy is considered a model of capitalism for its devotion to free trade, low taxes and government non-intervention. Nobel prize economist Milton Friedman frequently referred to Hong Kong when defending the merits of a free market system, a system that many believe vaulted Hong Kong from being a third-world shantytown to an international financial capital within a few decades. Boasting the world's most liberal economy[18] and being a global centre of finance and trade, Hong Kong is China's richest region in terms of GDP per capita and gross metropolitan product figures.

 

[razorburn]

Because very few of the people that use the word "communist" actually know what it means. In US it has become a generic insult, sort of like "idiot" is no longer a medical term.

And this is generally with the older groups who remember the cold war with clarity, and the anti-communist propaganda which was abundantly found in the time. Many of them don't know the meaning of the word, it is just a generic insult. Like the word "liberal" here, it's been demonized and lawded about until people no longer recognize what it is, often by the bottom right who have little understanding of what they are beyond bumper sticker slogans and snarky quips. The actual meanings of communism, capitalism, and socialism, are taught in american high schools though, at least for the recent generation, and it's not really a bad word to them.

 

[Zoogster]

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Which is what we try to achieve through Welfare, grants, aid, and a progressive tax system.

Communism is a form of Socialism. However Socialist policies can be included in combination with capitalist policies outside of Communism. Marx Communist ideas are dependent in fact on Capitalism, because the philosophy starts with the stealing or nationalization of former capital built industries and markets. It doesn't start with society being created and becoming successful from scratch, but from taking from those that have already successfuly created something, and giving it to the government to control in the way that favors the people more. This is one of the reasons it is hugely successful immediately, but gradualy less successful as the government has existed longer. The initial nationalization, and the Robin Hood style giving to the working class only works if there is something someone else has created to nationalize, and seems less beneficial as new things to nationalize dwindle.

Because there is a great lack of motivation to maximize productivity at the individual level in strictly Socialist societies, there is very little created that can be used as excess to fund the creation of new industries without directly and severely impacting the people who must live an even lower quality of life to compensate. However when capitalism is allowed to thrive, the excess can be taken/stolen through socialist policies without as drasticly reducing the motivation and productivity of the individual inspired to be more productive to enjoy the benefits of success within the capitalist market. This allows Socialism to coexist as a parasite on Capitalism creating a compromise between the two independent of the radical extremes of each.

Socialism isn't a milder form of communism

No Communism is a form of Socialism and therefore Socialist policies are often taken to another level under Communism. So while not necessarily a progression philosophically, in practice it often is a progression and one is more extreme than the other in practice. So Socialism can be milder socialist policies than exist in Communism and often is. However those extremes can be reached in socialism outside of communism, yet rarely are.


So back to the original topic, yes Communists are pro gun for the original Robin Hood style taking of the government and industries, and in supporting other nations to do so as well, as Cuba does in the western Hemisphere, and the Soviets did elsewhere, but that is where the gun support ceases, and the people must be disarmed. In fact disarmament has a more socialist ring to it because you are reducing the danger to all posed by dangerous weapons, by increasing danger to the few who are victimized and disarmed. A collective sort of mentality which is the opposite in spirit of our constitution.

 

[Skibane]

"(To insure quick Communist victory in civil warfare, there) arises the necessity of disarming the bourgeoiseie and arming the workers - of creating a Communist army..." — Leon Trotsky, "Manifesto of the Communist International to the Proletariat of the entire World", as related in A Documentary History of Communism, ed. Robert V. Daniels (New York: Random House, 1960), Vol. 2, p. 90.

"Only the Soviets can effectively arm the proletariat and disarm the bourgeosie. Unless this is done, the victory of socialism is impossible." — Vladimir I. Lenin, Lenin’s Collected Works: Theses and Report on Bourgeoisie Democracy and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, March 4, 1919, Vol. 28, p. 466.

"Only an armed people can be the real bulwark of popular liberty." — Vladimir I. Lenin, The Beginning of the Revolution in Russia, Selected Works, Vol. I, International Publishers, New York, 1967

"If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves."— Joseph Stalin (Stalin, Works, Vol. 10, p. 378.)

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns - That way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." — Mao Zedong, Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938 (published in Selected Works of Mao Zedong, 1965)

 

[wooderson]

Which is what we try to achieve through Welfare, grants, aid, and a progressive tax system.

No, it's not. A progressive tax system is meant to fund the federal government - nothing more. The government doesn't disburse funds from taxation "according to [one's] needs."

"Welfare, grants, aid" - so vague I don't believe you even have an argument to make.

 

[Zoogster]

No, it's not. A progressive tax system is meant to fund the federal government - nothing more. The government doesn't disburse funds from taxation "according to [one's] needs."

"Welfare, grants, aid" - so vague I don't believe you even have an argument to make.

They most certainly do. People must qualify for financial aid, many other people are subsidized to produce necessary goods, such as farmers according to need.
Welfare is according to need which is based upon income and amount of children etc, Social Security is taken according to percieved future need. Determined ability to pay many fees, fines etc as levied by our legal system in our society is according to percieved financial capability.

So what is distributed is most definately distributed according to demonstrated need. Some children recieve free lunches, according to financial need, others a free education according to financial need. However nothing is free and everything is paid for by taxes, so yes, wealth is taken and redistributed according to need.

What is taken is also taken according to percieved need.
A progressive tax system is designed to take as much as possible from those deemed capable of affording it, and less from those considered capable of providing less. Tax deductions according to dependents, or on marital status is based on percieved need.

These are only a handful of examples of taxation and redistribution of funds according to need.
Your statement otherwise shows a lack of knowledge of our system. There must be another underlying reason why you wish to deny this. Perhaps it conflicts with a political or personal agenda? For any rational logical person can clearly see that it is so in our society.

You make a statement, provide no logic, and then insult me to compensate for a lack of any provided logic.

This is supposed to be the High Road, were insulting someone else is a last resort, not your first.