As far as I know, all of them - USSR, Cuba, China, Vietnam, NK etc, implement gun control. Why should their governments do that? The people of these states genuinely support(ed) socialism, if they are/were all armed they can protect socialism far better than the 1% of the population that makes up the military.
That was a nickname in Spanish ("barbudos"). They even had baseball uniforms made for a series of exhibition games: https://www.considerable.com/entertainment/retronaut/fidel-castro-baseball-photos/.
Cuba gun ownership : 2.1 firearms per 100 people
China gun ownership : 3.6 firearms per 100 people
Vietnam gun ownership : 1.6 firearms per 100 people
North Korea gun ownership : Lack of accurate data but the state heavily regulates gun ownership per an act passed in 2009
You don't have to defend every single aspect of every socialist country. Admitting mistakes is how you improve the next socialist experiment. I simply cannot think of one good faith reason why these countries banned gun ownership.
I've read the post. I disagree with the idea that gun ownership should only be allowed in defense of the revolution. What if the government no longer represents the will of the people? In all AES countries, the state holds the monopoly of force, if people are dissatisfied with the state, surprise surprise, they cant do shit because they are unarmed. Besides, I disagree with the idea that guns should be banned in principle. There is no justification possible for guns to be banned.
Whenever you make dumb arguments like this to justify every single thing that socialist countries do, try to apply that same policy to yourself. Would you want your own government to ban guns? Even if they gave the caveat that you can operate guns during times of war?
I'm sure Cuba or NK will arm their people when it suits them, such as during foreign invasion, but why take away guns at all? I don't think individual gun ownership is bourgeois as much as individual ownership of clothes or utensils.
Let me make it super simple. Guns provide power. Power must be spread to the people. It's that simple. Please stop ideology from letting you realize what is happening here.
Socialists : UnDer nO ciRcumStaNCeS
Also Socialists : Ackshually you see individual gun ownership is bourgeois, ppl should only have guns to defend the state which is always perfect and incorruptible 😔
Agreed. The “horrible dictators take away guns” criticism comes from the US, where the govt does not represent the will of the people, anyone can have a gun and… what? How is this better? More school shootings per capita, I guess.
This is an idealist analysis of events, exactly what I'm telling you to stop doing. In the US, military power is concentrated with the state, guns are not the only weapons, you also have nukes, bombs, tanks, planes etc. Gun ownership among civilians is heavily concentrated among the right wing and right-leaning liberals. Something like 48% of gun owners have more than 4 guns. There is no socialist movement of any significant size. The majority of the population implicitly supports the way of life. These are the facts why the US population, despite an apparent high rate of gun ownership, do undertake any military action against the state. Also school shootings can be stopped if adults are armed, stop being A FUCKING LIBERAL HOLY FUCK.
None of these facts are an argument against gun control in socialist state. You are taking leaps of logic and conflation beyond anything I've seen, please stop letting ideology cloud your mind.
The 2nd amendment in the US is unique, and should be leveraged, no doubt, but let’s not circlejerk about it, that’s NRA’s job. Do or don’t. Be the change you want to see in the world instead of using right wing talking point to denigrate countries that achieved something by way of socialism, unlike the US with all its guns.
Nobody here is circlejerking abt the 2nd amendment, you seem to be suffering from an inferiority complex where you think any criticism of socialism is coming from a chauvinist American. Im not even from a Western country. Once again, Marx called for the ruthless criticism of all that exists. Gun control is an objectively terrible policy that all socialist countries implemented.
I agree with @glimmer_twin. Cuba et al are under a constant threat of a foreign sponsored coup. Lives of US war hawks would be made much easier if they didn’t have to smuggle the weapons in.
When guns are a problem, you try to solve the problem, not take away the guns. Notwithstanding the fact that this a bullshit excuse since coups can be much more effectively countered when 100% of the population is armed to the teeth rather than 5%, there are methods to deal with foreign interference such as having an effective counterintelligence agency or secret police.
I don’t want to be governed, I live in the enemy’s territory, and do not consider any government “my own.” But in my perfect world there are no guns because killing people = bad.
This is next level liberalism(anarchism). It doesn't matter what you consider the govt, they own your ass anyway. Perfect worlds dont exist and are irrelevant to any discussion.
I didn't perform any materialist analysis of socialist states. I simply asked why they implemented gun control and all I got was bullshit answers indistinguishable from "national security" or "muh children" speak that you get from liberals
Why are you showing me that picture? I'm not a chud. That picture is for chuds and liberals who have dumb arguments, not comrades who argue in good faith.
These statistics show people own guns? Gun culture is quite different from the US around the world. The State not forcing a gun into your hand is not them banning you from owning one
Is Actually Existing Socialist states what AES stands for? I have been seeing the acronym everywhere on here but I was too scared to ask and damage my online Marxist cred
Yep that's what it stands for. Now quickly delete your comment before people find out youre a poser
I call myself a socialist but I’m getting a Kamala Harris tattoo
Because a relatively small amount of the population can fight a successful guerrilla war, especially if they were to show success of some form(taking a region or something) declaring the socialist state invalid and thus receiving support from NATO and such.
In a world without a global order set against you to create unrest and conflict in your society yes, the citizens should be freely armed.
This is just a guess off the top of my dome but I’d imagine to help prevent counter-rev
Turns out there are multiple ways for a counterrevolution to occur.
If that is true then it would be more logical to implement gun control on the bourgeois or kulaks rather than the millions of workers and peasants who enthusiastically support the revolution
How would that even work if the state already has a monopoly on military firepower (not just some rifles) and the proletariat is armed and ready to defend their rights (irrespective of their social attitudes, when push comes to shoves no prole will voluntarily give up their salary, benefits and good workplace conditions when they can physically defend all of the above against some wannabie capitalists or whatever)?
The only way this would work is if the military does an 180° turn and decides to coup the government and install a counterrevolutionary regime, in which case the workers NOT having guns would not prevent the counter-revolution.
All in all there are zero downsides to instilling a spirit of revolutionary militancy in the populace, training and arming them and letting them defend the gains of the revolution how they see fit if the worst comes to worst. On the other hand lulling the workers into a sense of false security, that the "wise men" in central government know best and are keeping everyone safe is inviting disaster by robbing the entire citizenry of initiative and pre-emptively paralysing any revolutionary defence they could mount (as happened in the USSR and the rest of the Eastern Block).
To be honest, at a certain point they do more harm than good. That might be totally bonkers for an American to hear, but damn dude. I kinda like that not everybody is constantly armed to the teeth.
How would they do more harm than good? Military power is the only thing guaranteeing sovereignity, this is not an opinion, it is the objective fact. All Im asking is why military power was concentrated in ostensibly democratic socialist states rather than distributed to the people.
A person with a gun isn't military power. And frankly, a million people with a gun isn't either.
A million people with a gun is a militia, it literally is military power. Or do you mean in a rhetorical sense i.e they wont be effective?
What I meant by that was that a single person or many individuals with guns don't make an army because they aren't. They don't have the force projection, the infrastructure, the industrial capability, mechanics, planning, strategy, training, etc, etc. War and armies were a thing long before guns were invented. I would say having the shooty things is almost the least important, but somehow Americans love to focus on it. If the workers control the means of production they also control the means of weapon manufacturing by the way, just wanna throw that out there. And we love our Mao quote "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun", but that is meaningless if you take that statement at face value and you think he literally just meant "have a gun".
I do stress gun ownership in current circumstances in the states though, for incidental protective reasons. Too many right wing psychos on the loose.
-
why waste resources to make guns for everyone? Hunters and shit could still get them
-
everybody (at least in ussr) passed either mandatory military training or conscription service. The idea being -> socialism under threat -> previously conscripted people can take a gun -> go.
In what typical situation you would even need a gun?
- The whole point is that guns are essential for freedom. Like air or water or food is essential for life.
- Suure, where was this brave militia when Yeltsin dissolved the USSR? Oh right the noble Red Army was in on it and the citizens were unarmed and helpless to stop the capitalist restoration.
-
Freedom is a meaningless term, so I won’t argue that point.
-
It was not militia, it’s a reserve army force. You can make an argument that armed populace would have changed something, I’m not so sure it would make an iota of difference outside of scale of bloodshed, but I can concede this point
Tbh I’m explaining the reasoning from my understanding, I’m not defending it. I kinda doubt they’ve foreseen internal rot reaching such heights to require second revolution. Something to learn from for future comrades :)
why I cannot numerate paragraphs :angery:
-
-
USSR, Cuba, China, Vietnam, NK
These were all not fully industrialized states when their revolutions happened, why would you assume there was a giant stock of guns in civilians' hands in the first place?
They industrialized pretty rapidly and had the capability to put a gun in every civilians hand
The United States doesn't put a gun in every civilian's hands, and we're the most gun-friendly country on the planet. Why would you hold a socialist country to an even higher standard?
I think we have the same idea, idk why OP is trying to say citizens should be compelled to own guns.
What even is this tangent? OP never argued that every single citizen should have a gun. All they said is they should be able to.
OP, right above this exchange:
[socialist states] had the capability to put a gun in every civilians hand
I don't understand how you're extracting from that the idea that OP thinks the government should put a gun in every civilian's hand. They were replying to a comment which said, more or less, that there weren't enough guns to arm everyone who wants a gun. OP replied, more or less, that they could have armed everyone, regardless of whether they want a gun.
I don't know anything about this topic and am not offering any opinions, but your interpretation of their argument is bizarre and as far as I can tell clearly mistaken.
OP said it was possible to put a gun in everyone's hands, blamed socialist countries for not doing so, and equated universal gun ownership with freedom.
your interpretation of their argument is bizarre
I'd be on board with this if they responded: "Oh no, you're mistaken, I didn't mean to suggest everyone should own a gun." They didn't respond with this, though; they responded as if I was addressing what they meant to say.
They didn’t respond with this, though; they responded as if I was addressing what they meant to say.
They responded by saying that these states should, "just make a law that says 'anyone can own a gun now go crazy'"
That does not sound to me like they're saying that every person should be given a gun ... by force.
They responded with:
lol what why wouldnt we put freedom to the highest standard in socialist states??
As if freedom was equivalent to the rate of gun ownership. Even "anyone can own a gun now go crazy," in context, suggests that they think this law would result in high rates of gun ownership.
What sounded like them suggesting everyone should own a gun is the "they had the capability to put a gun in every civilian's hand" language followed by the suggestion that you're not free unless tons of people own guns. It's as silly as suggesting New York City bans cars because vehicle ownership rates there are so low.
OP doesn't seem to understand that tons of people might just not want to buy guns. Aside from the obvious safety issues, they're expensive, they can make you a target for crime, you have to practice with them and maintain them to have them be useful at all, and there are plenty of situations where having a gun would do you no good whatsoever.
What sounded like them suggesting everyone should own a gun is the “they the capability to put a gun in every civilian’s hand”
I maintain that you have completely misunderstood the meaning of this sentence. I still don't understand where in it you got the idea that there is an implicit, "And therefore they should have, by force" tacked on to the end.
When someone says "they had the capability to put a gun in every civilian's hand," it's pretty reasonable to assume they're talking about putting a gun in every civilian's hand.
Even if the context is that they're responding to someone who said, "There weren't enough guns to arm everyone who wanted one"
Gonna have to agree to disagree on this one, I guess.
lol what why wouldnt we put freedom to the highest standard in socialist states?? Is it like super duper hard to just make a law that says "anyone can own a gun now go crazy"??
Freedom is not forcing everyone to own a gun. Some people don't want guns for very good reasons -- mental health issues, kids around the house, etc. Therefore "why don't socialist countries put a gun in every civilian's hands?" is a ridiculous question.
Besides, elsewhere in this thread you've been directed to examples of socialist states encouraging gun ownership or at least familiarity with guns.
I also pointed out how socialist states had less than 3 guns per 100 ppl, most of them in the hands of the military. You're not arguing in good faith, guns weren't banned in socialist countries because of friggin menta health issues.
I also pointed out how socialist states had less than 3 guns per 100 ppl
These unsourced claims say literally nothing about the legality of gun ownership.
guns weren’t banned in socialist countries
As has been pointed out to you numerous places in this thread, you're right, guns weren't banned in many socialist countries.
You’re not arguing in good faith
Feel free to get the fuck out of town champ
Imagine getting this triggered because I pointed out some simple facts
Imagine getting this triggered
The hallmark of good-faith posting
Man this thread is really dissapointing, tbh. You came in good faith and it really seems like people would rather deflect than help or have any sort of discussion.
You came in good faith
I'm really not seeing that looking through OP's responses.
During old order Indonesia, with the increasing pressure applied to Indonesia by the imperialists and the increasing reactionary influence in the armed force, the PKI pushes for the formation of a "fifth arm", the arming of the entire Indonesian working class into a nationwide militia to safeguard the revolution. "Persenjatai buruh dan tani", "Arm the workers and peasants". Before it came into fruition, the CIA coups Soekarno and the military launches a nationwide campaign of slaughter killing millions of leftist, turning the country into the neocon shithole it still is today.
cos they are states, duh. revolt is good against capitalism, sure, but once you are in power you dont want people to take up arms against you. not because they'd be against communism or something, but just for self preservation of the ruling class of any socialist state. "but murx said never take away people's right to arm, it's for a greater good" yeah and for the government of an authoritarian state the good is not to get ousted by armed people.
To be fair the context of that marx quote is specifically about the people during a revolution forming organised militia.
The quote gets used completely out of context a lot.
People should actually read the whole thing. Relevant excerpt:
There is no doubt that during the further course of the revolution in Germany, the petty-bourgeois democrats will for the moment acquire a predominant influence. The question is, therefore, what is to be the attitude of the proletariat, and in particular of the League towards them:
- While present conditions continue, in which the petty-bourgeois democrats are also oppressed;
- In the coming revolutionary struggle, which will put them in a dominant position;
- After this struggle, during the period of petty-bourgeois predominance over the classes which have been overthrown and over the proletariat.
- [snip]
- To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party, whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising.
He was essentially laying out what to do in each step. With step 2 being the very immediate building up of arms prior to revolution. Arming the people and building the arms required for revolution. This is quite different to "the people should be armed at all times" and it's a little inaccurate that the quote gets used that way.
Thats pretty much my point but not many people seem to be getting it. Thats why im asking people in good faith why a supposed democratic socialist state would not allow their people to be armed
why the socialist states didnt allow arms is an obvious thing, it's becuase revolution is bad when it's against you. how a future socialist state would be forced by the working class to not ban arms is another story which is harder to answer
I know next to nothing about this issue but I have a question from your OP.
implement gun control.
Did these places implement gun control or institute a ban on certain segments of the population having firearms?
So control but not an outright ban, right?
Just spitballing...
So there were lots of people who just didn't want guns, maybe?
Worried about the flow of guns into black markets, maybe?
Leadership not completely trusting the workers, maybe?
Keeping military style weapons limited to military and organized militia and leaving other small arms (pistols, non-automatic long rifles) for people who hunted or something?
Phew was worried there for a second, so lucky that the military got it all covered and prevented the dismantling of the Warsaw Pact states! Oh wait...
it is democratic when the communist party does it, because the communist party represents the people.
