OTC: Can Leftists be Pro Gun

So I think that the right/left paradigm on arms usage can be understood by illustrating the difference between individual armament, and collective (or class) armament, especially if one analogises based on the statement that

Violence is a language that communicates material interests.

So, the way the right wing would have it, every individual/family would have a gun in their own home to protect themselves from single episodes of interpersonal violence. One can tell this is the motivation when reading the quote, "an armed society is a polite society." That is, each person behaves politely to each other person because they know that every person has a gun behind them.

Something interesting in this model occurs. Particular flareups of violence are statements about material interests between individuals. Taking the violence-is-language logic into account, what this model "sounds" like is a cacaphony of disparate events, in which one cannot interpret any narrative; thus, no material interests can be campaigned for.

Now, consider class armament. In this model, arms are used primarily for the communication for the material interests of a particular class. This model does two things. It:

  • Forms a single, coherent statement that can challenge any dominant narratives, and

  • Fundamentally changes class dynamics, as the defence of the interests of a particular class is now organised

In fact, such model is the dialectical strategy. Tthe radical alleviation of the contradiction of violence emerging from conflicting material interests and a change of material interest being the only way to alleviate such violence is to wield violence in an organised manner to settle material interests.

From these modes of armament, we can predict how states react to violence. For example, police departments may have particular anti-gang task forces that respond to gang violence, but the source of resources (especially weaponry) and legalistic apparatus used in response to their violence are the same as for everyday, interpersonal violence. Why is this the case? Why doesn't the state treat gangs like it does conventional armies? Because the violence gangs use does not challenge the hegemonic narrative.

In contrast, the Black Panther Party, a Maoist, black liberationist political organisation, that although had paramilitary wings, used their arms for collective defence, was suppressed with all the ruthless, militaristic might the United States had to use. The response seems disproportionate, but remember that the narrative of the Black Panther Party, an anti-racist, socialist narrative, is antithetical to the rhetoric of the American state.

We can also predict the role of arms in a post-revolutionary situation. The way the right wing would have it, we would return to a politico-economic situation that still requires high levels of armament, as the material interests of individuals would be adversarial, and any classes in society would not be able to be "heard". However, the way the far left, the way *we, would have it, once our revolution is over, we'd put down our guns, because such a revolution would eliminate the conditions which would necessitate their use in the first place.

Hopefully, such a harmonious resolution will alleviate the liberal proponent of gun control, and their pacifist sensibilities.

/r/Anarchism Thread Link - youtube.com