Communism vs. firearms

[ctdonath]

In an attempt to stop thread hijacking...

about the guns being taken away. In a truly communist society that would not happen.

Au contraire, it MUST happen for a communist society (short of a very small and very voluntary one) to survive as such. The essence of communisim is "what's yours is mine", which requires that you not be able to stop me from taking/using your stuff ... but owning a firearm gives you the ability to say "no, that's mine, not yours" (which is the essence of capitalism). Human nature being what it is, conflict over ownership WILL arise, and at some point someone WILL (if armed) maintain possession of goods via lethal force. To contend that it won't is profoundly naieve, as is the notion that others (sociopolitical leaders in particular) wouldn't disarm the dissenter by equally lethal force to maintain their ideal.

To achieve communism as a national cultural standard requires comprehensive disarmament of the people. As participation is practically involuntary*, anyone who develops a notion of capitalistic ownership must be denied the ability to enforce their own ownership of stuff. If people are not disarmed, they can effectively choose to be capitalistic instead of communistic, at which point a political avalanche begins and the nation turns largely capitalistic instead of communistic.

At one extreme, all people are fundamentally selfish & evil, and will take whatever they can from others; communism codifies theft into an axiomatic justification.
At the other extreme, even if all are good and seek the best for everyone, conflicts of interest will naturally arise, some of which can only be resolved by force.
Combining the two to find a realistic middle just becomes a mess.

Communism MUST fail, and give way to capitalism.
Communism cannot tolerate armed citizens.
It's just human nature to own stuff, to have interests that conflict with others', and to protect possessions & lives with lethal force**.




* - Are _you_ seriously willing to leave this country for sociopolitical reasons short of brutal tyrrany? Didn't think so. Few people leave their home countries for any reason.

** - By protecting possessions, I don't just mean your wallet or a few things, I mean anything and everything you hold dear can very well be taken from you. Nice house? precious goods? Thanks!

 

[Chui]

While I disagree with the theory that we are naturally evil (we DO do evil things, however) you and perceive it quite similarly. To perceive it any other way is mind boggling.

 

[mec]

The prevailing wisdom is that Communism is extinct. This is interesting in light of the 1.9 Billion people living in China. It is intersting to look at Wikipedia and learn all of the different types of Communism there are or have been.

Our poor domestic Communists tooks such a hit from McCarthy and Hoover that there are only a few thousand left. Most of them joined the Democratic Party or just became Socialists. It may be that North American communists were always what Lenin called "Useful Idiots,"s but they did tend to believe in the historic imperative, the dictatorship of the proletariat and the eventual obsolence of the government after communism fixed all earthly ills. This was long after The Reds in Russia and later, China had decided that dictatorship by the communist party was preferable to all that stuff Marx and Engels thougt up ( or borrowed from others.)

In the 30s, the communist were hot and heavy for the National Firearms Act. they were under the mistaken impression that people considered them just another legitimate political party. The original plan for the 1932-34 legislation was to include handguns as tax stamp items just like machineguns. About this time, it became evident that the Communists were cheerleaders for gun control and the handguns fell out of the act.

 

[cbsbyte]

Communism never existed in a pure form at least not as a country. The communist countries actually never called themselves communist, they usually referred to themselves as Socialist nation. The Western democracies coined the name Communist countries, when In reality, all the "communist countries" where/are totalitarian socialist regimes.

 

[Durruti]

Well, in discussing this, I think we run into a big problem with definitions. What is communism? What is property? Unfortunately, the answers to these questions vary across both time and ideology. I'll try to make it clear what I'm talking about before I get into discussing firearms.

There's an important distinction between big-C Communism and little-C communism. Big-C Communism generally refers to the ideology of Marxism. It's the philosophy of dialectical materialism, which says that history moves through stages from primitive communism, to slave states, to feudal states, to capitalist states, to socialist states, to little-C communism (Leninism decided to skip the capitalist step, but that's another discussion). Anarchists, on the other hand, rejected the progression theory of dialectical materialism and wanted societies to skip directly to little-C communism.

Little-C communism is encapsulated by the phrase, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Furthermore, it is a stateless society. Anarchists wanted to overthrow the state; Marxists believed that socialist states would "wither away" as they became obsolete. The precise functioning of these societies is a matter of some debate, but it generally involves some variation of industrial/community based direct democracy. So that's little-C communism.

So, what is property? Anarchists and Marxists tend to use a different definition than is generally accepted in everyday speech. It does not refer to personal possessions, like your clothes, furniture, car, home, etc. It refers to capital; things used to make businesses run. Factories, machines, places of business, business computers, etc. Anarchists and Marxists view the ownership of these things as enabling the owner to exploit (and thus steal) the labor of others. In a communist society, such things would be collectively owned. You still get to keep your personal possessions, provided they were not bought with stolen money.

So, getting to guns. Do individuals get to have guns in a little-C communist society? I think the answer is a clear yes, and most Anarchist and Marxists agree. Clearly we cannot eliminate guns, and even if we could it would likely exacerbate inequalities. Since power should not be concentrated in the hands of a few, the only solution is to allow everyone to have firearms. Anyone who misuses them will be appropriately punished or rehabilitated (in the good sense of that word; I'm not talking about the reeducation camps that the state socialists had).

I hope this helps. When people talk about guns and communism, they're generally talking about state socialism, like in the Soviet Union. As for them, I think the historical record speaks for itself.

 

[Joe Demko]

The Israeli kibbutzim are collective and armed.

 

[Clint Westwood]

One of the strongest socialist nations, Switzerland, requires everyone to join the military, and trains them on gun use, and gives everyone guns. They also have one of, if not the, lowest crime rates out of any country.

 

[wooderson]

The essence of communisim is "what's yours is mine", which requires that you not be able to stop me from taking/using your stuff ... but owning a firearm gives you the ability to say "no, that's mine, not yours" (which is the essence of capitalism).

Too long to be 'bumper sticker ideology' but in content not too far off.

 

[Chui]

Communism is very much alive. A rose by any other name is still a rose...

 

[cbsbyte]

One of the strongest socialist nations, Switzerland, requires everyone to join the military, and trains them on gun use, and gives everyone guns. They also have one of, if not the, lowest crime rates out of any country.

Switzerland is quasi socialist nation. It is probably more capitalist than many other European countries like France or Germany. Some major industries are owned by the Government such as airlines, power, banking fuel, and they have free medical care etc. But private industry and commercial business is a vital part of their economy.

 

[Durruti]

Chui, you're refering to state socialism, not communism.

Your tagline contains an error as well. Bourgeoisie is not the same as middle class. It means ruling, or upper class. The middle class would, for the most part, be the petit bourgeoisie, which is separate.

Of course, today the definition of middle class has been stretched beyond its usefulness. Most of the working poor and most of the rich consider themselves to be middle class. It's become a useless term (unless you're a politician giving a speech).

 

[Clint Westwood]

Yeah, I won't argue about which is more socialist with you, but like stated before, there is no one type of government. Every nation is part capitalist and part socialist.

 

[Kaylee]

Personal firearms might be compatible with a communist state, provided sufficient force is in the hands of the state to still bully the people into line. (I get your point about "only the means of production" Durruti, but I don't see that working in practice - the existence of private personal property implies that over time significant differences between living standards would still develop, and the ensuing class differences would make even the "little-c" communism moot... unless the State has the power to confiscate personal property as well in the name of class equality.)

As to Communism itself... hrmm. I propose an experiment. Lets take a nice modern nation, and smash its infrastructure to pieces so we can start from scratch. Then we can split it in half, and build a wall right down the middle. Then we can practice (more or less) capitalism on one side, and (more or less) communism on the other, and wait fifty years to see which works better. Heck, let's make it interesting. We can see which side people would be willing to risk death to live on by trying to kill anyone who crosses the wall.

I mean, it'd be the perfect laboratory experiment. Too bad we could never engineer such a thing in the real world.

 

[Clint Westwood]

I like you Durruti.

 

[Thumper]

As to Communism itself... hrmm. I propose an experiment. Lets take a nice modern nation, and smash its infrastructure to pieces so we can start from scratch. Then we can split it in half, and build a wall right down the middle. Then we can practice (more or less) capitalism on one side, and (more or less) communism on the other, and wait fifty years to see which works better. Heck, let's make it interesting. We can see which side people would be willing to risk death to live on by trying to kill anyone who crosses the wall.

I mean, it'd be the perfect laboratory experiment. Too bad we could never engineer such a thing in the real world.

Hilarious. Good to see you're still around.

 

[Cosmoline]

In Communist Russia, thread hijack YOU!

 

[freakazoid]

In Communist Russia, thread hijack YOU!

ROFL,

Durruti - I couldn't of have said it any better myself. Good read man, good read.

 

[Chui]

Communism is a misnomer. It actually is State Socialism BY DICTATORSHIP.

The Bourgeoise are, in fact, the Middle Class. Lenin, Marx, Trotsky, Babeuf, etc., were allies of the elite. They were wholly financed by the elite.

Check out Nesta Webster's materials.

 

[Jeff]

So, getting to guns. Do individuals get to have guns in a little-C communist society? I think the answer is a clear yes, and most Anarchist and Marxists agree.

I would have to disagree. To my way of thinking, small 'c' communism is another term for anarcho-communalism. Picture a small community, self-sufficient and self-serving, acting as its own seat of grassroots government. The rule of law, although completely localized to the community, would still be a democratic affair.

So would guns be allowed? Only if the community favored guns-- collectively favored guns. If they did not, then you wouldn't be allowed to have them.

Anarcho-communalism eschews big government, obviously, but it does not support any Objective or Libertarian moral code, which would support the individual's rights first and foremost.

 

[Durruti]

You're right, Jeff. I was referring to anarcho-communism/communalism/whatever. That's what the term communism is supposed to refer to, but the common use of that term makes lengthy explanations necessary.

So yes, an anarcho-communist society could have collectives/communities that ban firearms, but the society as a whole would not, as that would be authoritarian.

I like the idea, Kaylee. We, as a people, could learn so much if we could just throw research ethics out the window

 

[ctdonath]

Cosmo? you're a /. reader???

 

[Kaylee]

I like the idea, Kaylee. We, as a people, could learn so much if we could just throw research ethics out the window

Well if you like, we can also make sure that the country we hypothetically split in half does throw research ethics out the window, at least at some recent point in their history. Sound good?

 

[ctdonath]

I mean, it'd be the perfect laboratory experiment.

That would be Germany, for those of you in Rio Linda.

 

[ctdonath]

(From the hijacked thread...)

Sick mantra? Destroys the souls of it's subjects? What are you talking about? Is caring about people, and actually helping them, sick? Is Jesus sick?

The key is "voluntary". A "true" communist society can only work if it is purely voluntary, that those who disagree are free to leave, that those who actually possess something can voluntarily choose whether to give it to another. What Jesus spoke of involved personal choice, not compulsory confiscation. The early church in Acts describes people giving all they had, not the community taking. This, indeed, makes for a fine social order, built on humane concern for others above one's self.

Unfortunately, it don't work that way in real life.

Even the Israeli Kibbutz, the most successful pure/true communistic communities, have nonetheless become capitalistic enterprises & towns.

Caring for others, obviously, is not "sick" - and that you, freakazoid, would apply such to another poster's comments indicates you willfully miss the point. What IS sick is that once a communist community is formed, and that there will naturally be conflicts over who shall care for whom and how, some will decide that someone else's goods/abilities/resources shall be used to address the concern ... and will eventually compel, by force, that third party to comply. What destroys souls is when the collective takes (without compensation) what one has worked hard to achieve, one's will to achieve is devastated. What destroys communities is when one has earned the means to more easily earn more, jealousy (coveting - see the 10th Commandment) sets in, and the natural response of other "comrades" is to either commandeer those means (for the good of the collective, you see) or destroy them (to keep us all equal, you see); this has been seen time and again in communes where there weren't enough tractors to go around, so what tractors there were got rounded up and left to rust (can't have inequality, you see).

Invariably, there will be inconsistencies in who gets what. Sure, caring for others is noble ... but when resources for caring are scarce and cannot be evenly dispersed, how do those resources get divvied up? When the notion of "ownership" is cast out of a society, what does one do when others would take away goods/resources vital to one's survival (per conflict of interest)? To this thread, the fall-back position is: guns. Comrades A and B need X to survive ... but A doesn't have it, and B does. If guns are allowed, and possession of X is a life-and-death matter, then A feels justified in using his gun to get X from B (sharing & caring, you know), while B feels justified in using his gun to maintain his life-sustaining possession of X (defending ownership). In capitalism, A's actions are morally deemed "theft" and disallowed by the community; the capitalistic system remains morally consistent and the community remains intact. In communism, both A's and B's actions are ... well ... the moral system has a breakdown, and the only solution is for the community to take X away from both (debating over who gets it until one of them dies, then giving it to the other), and taking the guns away from both so nobody gets killed, and giving the guns to the leaders to ensure they can better keep order among the disarmed.

Yes, freakazoid, "true communism" sounds great. Keep in mind:
- it only works when participation is purely voluntary (per Jesus' axiom, which you unwittingly invoked)
- it cannot last long in a fallen world where serious conflicts of interest are unavoidable; the few working communes didn't last long.

Upshot:
Communist societies cannot tolerate civilian gun ownership.
Capitalistic societies cannot tolerate civilian disarmament.

 

[Lucky]

"Basically, National Socialism and Marxism are the same."

- Adolf Hitler, in February 1941
_______________________________________________________________

"A system of licensing and registration, is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie."

- Vladimir Lenin
_______________________________________________________________

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. Prohibition of private firearms is the goal."

- Attorney General Janet Reno US Department of Justice
_______________________________________________________________

"...disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda."

- Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.