Communism, Socialism and the 2A

[Aaryq]

Howdy folks.  I'm a new face here and a regular face on THR.  My question for you (I hope this belongs here and not on THR) is about politics and guns.

A lot of times, we will talk about the left trying to disarm the populace.  How does gun control fit into actual Socialism and Communism (not the totalitarian Stalinism and whatnot)?
Are there any Communist or Socialist political parties that believes strongly in the Second Amendment? 

[De Selby]

Howdy folks.  I'm a new face here and a regular face on THR.  My question for you (I hope this belongs here and not on THR) is about politics and guns.

A lot of times, we will talk about the left trying to disarm the populace.  How does gun control fit into actual Socialism and Communism (not the totalitarian Stalinism and whatnot)?
Are there any Communist or Socialist political parties that believes strongly in the Second Amendment? 

George Orwell seemed to be a strong believer in personal firearms.  For sure he enjoyed shooting and firearms himself.  That's apparent in his writing. 

So one major communist who believed in it...have no idea about the parties.  I forgot that communist parties still existed.

[SomeKid]

SS,

I think Orwell was very anti-Communist. Or perhaps you haven't read his books? They are quite AGAINST police states.

As a rule, communism/socialism/nazism (they are all cut from the same cloth) are against personal liberty.

[jefnvk]

I have a frind who emigrated from communist Poland, his dad was heavily involved in sport shooting while there.

I have no idea what kind of restrictions or whatever they had on personal ownership, though.

[wooderson]

The Black Panthers weren't an explicitly 'socialist' group (they had concerns that took precedence over the means of production, dontchaknow), but were - and still are - known for being armed.

Union activists throughout American history have armed themselves - got to have something for protection when the cops and the thugs are gunning for you. Less common today (though not unheard of) but still fairly prevalent when folks in less-developed parts of the world wish to unionize.

Orwell, not exactly a 'communist' (in either the Soviet sense or how people otherwise identify as communists) - his foreword to Animal Farm was a defense of 'democratic socialism' and he fit in largely with the 'libertarian socialist' element of British politics and the Spanish Civil War.

By and large, my experience with fellow travelers has been that they're less apt to believe in gun control than liberals. It's for a variety of reasons - guns are a useful tool in defending oneself against non-governmental threats (think Freedom Riders), distrust of the police and authorities in general (if they're armed, I want to be), pragmatic (if you're a pinko, you likely believe that crime has a multitude of root causes that aren't connected to access to guns), etc..

[wooderson]

I think Orwell was very anti-Communist.

Orwell was anti-Stalinist (or anti-Soviet). He was a lifelong and committed socialist.

Or perhaps you haven't read his books? They are quite AGAINST police states.

As are the vast majority of socialists.

As a rule, communism/socialism/nazism (they are all cut from the same cloth)

Not worth dignifying.

are against personal liberty.

They'd disagree.

[De Selby]

SS,

I think Orwell was very anti-Communist. Or perhaps you haven't read his books? They are quite AGAINST police states.

As a rule, communism/socialism/nazism (they are all cut from the same cloth) are against personal liberty.

No, I've definitely read his books-George Orwell was as red as they come.  In fact I think it would be hard to read any of his books short of one (Animal Farm) and come to the conclusion that he's not a communist, since he says so explicitly in virtually every text.  His main problem with Stalin was that he didn't consider Stalin to be a true communist-you see stalin didn't hand out property to worker's councils and take away all privileges and excess wealth from elites.

Orwell didn't consider communism to be a police state system-he thought, as many do on this board, that if you just let people vote, they would vote themselves a fairly equal share of everyone else's property.  He was probably right-if you have complete democracy, and people get to read media of the sort that Orwell produced, they most likely will just vote themselves as much of the property of their rich neighbors as possible.

Edit: I'll go ahead and post a typical essay of Orwell's that I found available in full text online:

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/lion/english/e_saw

What this war has demonstrated is that private capitalism  that is, an economic system in which land, factories, mines and transport are owned privately and operated solely for profit  does not work. It cannot deliver the goods. This fact had been known to millions of people for years past, but nothing ever came of it, because there was no real urge from below to alter the system, and those at the top had trained themselves to be impenetrably stupid on just this point. Argument and propaganda got one nowhere. The lords of property simply sat on their bottoms and proclaimed that all was for the best. Hitler's conquest of Europe, however, was a physical debunking of capitalism.

continued:

An army of unemployed led by millionaires quoting the Sermon on the Mount  that is our danger. But it cannot arise when we have once introduced a reasonable degree of social justice. The lady in the Rolls-Royce car is more damaging to morale than a fleet of Goering's bombing planes.

[SomeKid]

I could very well be wrong, and maybe he was red. So be it. However, when I read 1984/Animal Farm, I got the real impression he was very much against governments having power. Hence, I concluded he would not be a communist.

wood, you may think that, but from my POV they are the same. Unless you can debunk that, why not hold your tongue?

Communist Russia (CR) - Never baned guns outright, but when Stalin came to power, he started restricting them, and the restrictions kept getting added. Legal gun ownership I would daresay was all but unheard of.
Nazi Germany (NG) - Banned private ownership. If you want to use guns, join the SS.
Modern Day Socialist Britain (SB) -  All guns are banned. Replicas get registered.

All three are the same here. Lets move on.

CR - Starved tens of millions.
NG - Holocaust.
SB - Not overtly killing people off, but it does let innocent people die at the hands of criminals, and does nothing to save them. Far as I am concerned, this is murder by disarming and neglecting.

Two are identical, one is close.

CR - Government owns everything.
NG - Government owned, or simply took.
SB - Officially you still have private property.

Two are virtually identical, one is catching up.

CR - Privacy. Funny.
NG - Privacy? Who needs that.
SB - Cameras cameras everywhere...

Looks to me like the three methods are all cut from whole cloth. Communism is a political ideology, and has socialism as an economic system. You cannot have communism without socialism. This alone proves they are similar systems. You can have the socialism minus the true communism, but it won;t be much different, as demonstrated above.

[Perd Hapley]

I got the real impression he was very much against governments having power.

So, he was an anarchist?   

[Aaryq]

What about the Communist Party USA, or the whole mess of various Socialist parties?

While I'm on the subject, anyone know what Karl Marx has to say about it?

[CAnnoneer]

You cannot maintain communism without an oppressive state because people are inherently more selfish than altruistic and because different people are skilled and/or successful to a different degree. "From everyone by abilities, to everyone by needs." is a fundamental commie slogan that illustrates the inherent need for a powerful state to ensure the redistribution.

Since a powerful oppressive thieving state is a necessary condition, it leads to gun control quite naturally, to diminish the power of individuals and organizations to resist. As a result, in soviet countries there was essentially no legal gun ownership except for an extremely limited number of party functionaries and a very small community of trusted hunters, whose shotguns were under lock and key for most of the year and whose ammunition was strictly monitored.

Bottom line: gun freedoms and socialist/communist states are inherently incompatible.

[Paddy]

The threat of individual disarmament is not from either Communism or Socialism.  Both have been tried and failed.  The threat is from the fascism of the corporatist state, the old 'military industrial complex' Eisenhower warned us about.

[CAnnoneer]

The threat of individual disarmament is not from either Communism or Socialism.  Both have been tried and failed.  The threat is from the fascism of the corporatist state, the old 'military industrial complex' Eisenhower warned us about.

Historically, fascism failed as well, in Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan. By your logic, we should not fear it either.

Corporatism is something that you often refer to but never define. So, we still don't know what you mean by it.

Guns and gun-related products as well as the associated business such as tourism and hunting are billion-dollar industries. At first glance, it makes no sense for corporations to want to lose all that business.

[wooderson]

I could very well be wrong, and maybe he was red. So be it. However, when I read 1984/Animal Farm, I got the real impression he was very much against governments having power. Hence, I concluded he would not be a communist.

This is precisely what makes him a 'libertarian socialist' or 'democratic socialist' - or why he could conceivably be a little-c communist (from 'commune'), though I don't recall Orwell describing himself as such.

wood, you may think that, but from my POV they are the same. Unless you can debunk that, why not hold your tongue?

From my POV black is white and and up is down - why don't you debunk that, huh?

Your POV is ignorant, sorry. We see this in your reference to big ol' Socialist Britain - which has a mixed-market economy (with all attendant problems - their debt/housing problem is going to be a nightmare) and wealth division not at all unlike ours.

Communism is a political ideology, and has socialism as an economic system. You cannot have communism without socialism. This alone proves they are similar systems.

These logical proofs are not your strong suit.

[Iain]

Your POV is ignorant, sorry. We see this in your reference to big ol' Socialist Britain - which has a mixed-market economy (with all attendant problems - their debt/housing problem is going to be a nightmare) and wealth division not at all unlike ours.

I was going to say something else, but yeah that'll do. It's more polite too. I'd appreciate you saying something about the sheer insanity of comparing modern Britain to Nazi Germany and the USSR. Especially including a 'genocide' category in that comparision. Mind boggles, really.

[K Frame]

Back it off a couple of notches, Wooderson.

[Scout26]

[Rant mode =ON]

NAZI,  IIRC, that was the acronym for National SOCIALIST German Workers Party.  It wasn't a "right-wing" party as is popularly proclaimed, but was in fact a scoialist regime, complete with wealth re-distribution (mostly from conquered people/territories) that keep the German people placated and Hitler in power.  Since any socialism is legalized theft, what Hitler constantly needed were new 'victims' in which to rob, whether that was Poland, Norway, France, the Balkans, Russia or Jews.  Hitler was driven by the desire to keep his Volk economically happy to avoid a replay of the "stab in the back" caused by the rampant hunger, starvation and economic chaos during the the First World War.       

http://www.reason.com/news/show/120941.html

The Nazi's were not right-wing, but socialists in the truest sense of the word.

[END Rant]

[wooderson]

Um, no, they weren't. Their philosophical genesis, and their policies, had bugger all to do with either Marxist socialism and those ideologies claiming ancestry (Bolshevism and social democracy of the era), or with the other strains of socialism (anarchism, Proudhon, etc..).

Nor was the party 'capitalist' or 'conservative' in the sense that Americans can understand or identify (except for Buchananites - rimshot please) - for Hitler, like Stalin and totalitarians throughout man's history, all ideology was trumped by a cult of personality and greed for state power. But Hitler and the party did have the whole-hearted backing of Germany's industrialists and capitalist ruling class. Why? Because he was good for them - repudiating Weimar and rapid industrialization fed their pockets, he shut down the actual socialist parties (KPD and SPD), demolished a democratic/left-leaning Republic that they never supported, broke up independent labor unions (replacing them with state-run groups that never attempted to bargain on behalf of labor) and later provided them with cheap (coughcough) labor.

The simple fact is that Hitler's greatest enemies were the leftists in Germany and elsewhere - and a primary reason he was left alone by the US/Britain/France during his rise to power was that he represented a non-Bolshevik (and ostensibly capitalist-friendly) power center in Europe. The capitalist powers were far more fearful of Bolshevik or anarchist revolutions in their backyard than they were of fascist states (as evidenced by their willingness to work with Spain and Portugal for the next thirty years).

[ilbob]

The simple fact is that Hitler's greatest enemies were the leftists in Germany and elsewhere - and a primary reason he was left alone by the US/Britain/France during his rise to power was that he represented a non-Bolshevik (and ostensibly capitalist-friendly) power center in Europe. The capitalist powers were far more fearful of Bolshevik or anarchist revolutions in their backyard than they were of fascist states (as evidenced by their willingness to work with Spain and Portugal for the next thirty years).

Interestingly enough, they turned out to be right.

[wooderson]

Me, I think the proper solution would have been to support free and democratic states/movements whether they called themselves socialist or capitalist, and to oppose totalitarian states/movements whether they call themselves socialist or capitalist. Room enough in the world that you don't really have to take a side in Bolshevism v. Fascism (or Stalinism v. Naziism if you'd go with the bottom-dweller of each).

[Iain]

You can't go too far on my wing, it never gets bad, only better and better. Unlike those other guys on the other wing, buncha nazis.

[thebaldguy]

I think that firearms ownership could happen with communism and socialism. I don't think we've seen much of it. I think there are some democratic based societies that restrict firearm ownership as well.

Repressive leaders/governments can certainly prevent firearm ownership from happening anywhere with any style of government. Repression and control of citizens by force occurs when only governments have guns.

[wooderson]

There are also a multitude of reasons behind gun control - cultural and political, that make it rather difficult to say whether or not gun control fits into a particular ideology.

For better or worse, the pansy liberals who want to take away your guns aren't doing it because they hate you, or because they don't want anyone to be able to challenge the state. Their is a genuine belief on their part that if you restricted (or removed entirely) private gun ownership, it would save lives. This is a misguided (and incorrect) belief - but it isn't one that should be met with anger.

Whereas an authoritarian regime is interested in disarming individuals because they pose a threat. For the Nazis, the plan was promoting individual gun ownership among Aryan supporters and denying ownership to Jews. For the Chinese, in any form (Maoist or the current horrorshow), it was about anyone being able to pose a threat to the hegemony of the state.

[roo_ster]

Orwell:

Orwell was a socialist, no doubt in my bourgeoisie bones.  He was different with regard to most his contemporaries in that he was willing to call out thuggery when he saw it in socialist & similar groups.

As a rule, communism/socialism/nazism (they are all cut from the same cloth)

Not worth dignifying.

It is quite worth dignifying, as it is fact.

Heck, I'll go on more and say that American progressive movement grew its roots in fascist soil:

A photo of Phil La Follette's well intentioned National Progressive Party launch in 1938...It doesn't show the giant banners that were arranged behind him, but you can tell by the Nazi Party meets Jefferson Davis official Progressive Party logo hanging from the podium that it wasn't a good idea....and yes,copying the iconic success of German Nazi design was their naive intention.

Mussolini (the guy that popularized the term fascist) was a socialist of the international sort, until he figured that nationalistic socialism was the surer route to power:

Mussolini found a job in February 1909 in the city of Trento, which was ethnically Italian but then under the control of Austria-Hungary. He did office work for the local socialist party and edited its newspaper L'Avvenire del Lavoratore ("The Future of the Worker"). It did not take him long to make contact with irredentist politician and journalist Cesare Battisti, and to agree to write for and edit his newspaper Il Popolo ("The People") in addition to the work he did for the party.

I could go on, but it is getting late.

[wooderson]

He was different with regard to most his contemporaries in that he was willing to call out thuggery when he saw it in socialist & similar groups.

What makes him 'different' in that regard? The oldest continuous strain of American socialism (Eugene Debs' democratic socialism) broke with the Soviets in 1919. Much of the conflict of the Spanish Civil War was between Soviet leadership and leftists who weren't willing to ride on Moscow's train. At no point between the wars or after was there a general acquiescence on the part of socialists to Bolshevism or Stalinism.

Heck, I'll go on more and say that American progressive movement grew its roots in fascist soil:

Which would be great (if laughable), were the 'American progressive movement' a socialist group.
(Say, wasn't Bob LaFollette a Republican?)

As for the 'circumcised swastika' - have you a shred of evidence that the desire had anything to do with Nazi Germany? Of course not. But you'll slur with the scantest of evidence, I guess.

Mussolini (the guy that popularized the term fascist) was a socialist of the international sort, until he figured that nationalistic socialism was the surer route to power:

And Ronald Reagan was once a New Deal Democrat, and countless Republicans segregationist Democrats. This is why we don't analyze based on what someone once claimed to be, but rather how they governed - their mature political ideology.