====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
The left has not stayed out of the gun control debate - it just is not covered by the corporate media, so this view is only heard by small numbers, as compared to those promoting gun control and those such as around the National Rifle Association. The issue of Gun Control did not arise around African American self defense of either the Deacons for Defense, or the Black Panther Party. Labor strikes have seen time and again efforts to disarm striking workers against scab attacks. The current gun control promotion was not first proposed by left liberals either - but definite forces with institutional U. S. government connections, who want a controlled population of workers of all races. These think tank forces, who promoted and are promoting this, are pro-capitalist. Working people bearing arms has historically been perceived as a threat and attacked by governments (monarch or republics), who want an easily controlled populace. As for the repressive state forces respecting/upholding the Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, and allowing armed workers, has not been respected by these forces, or will it, and always the excuse of National or local security as the reason to suspend the Second Amendment right. Marxists should support working people having power in all its forms. > Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 17:15:20 -0800 > From: fajar...@ix.netcom.com > Subject: Re: [Marxism] The right to bear arms, > To: causecollec...@msn.com > > ====================================================================== > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > ====================================================================== > > > On 1/12/2011 8:51 PM, DW wrote: > > In my opinion the opposition to guns by liberals was the result of not just > > the rise of crime in the 1960s and violance in the big cities (when all talk > > of gun control, gun bans, etc started) but was also*partly* a latent form > > of racism by these liberals who were reacting to the rise of crime committed > > by Blacks with guns. I raise this because opposition to gun > > control/ownership was brought up on this list arguing that gun ownership by > > whites who were racist bought guns in response to the same issue. Same > > racism, different reactions. Both are true no doubt or at least in many > > instances. > > > > But the left, as a whole, has stayed out of the debate as I noted in the > > first paragraph. It is an argument basically between anti-gun Liberals and > > the petty-bourgeois Rightists. Or, at least, they have "owned" the > > discussion. > > > > Here is a short "thought piece" I posted not long ago on politics board > on the subject of gun control, the left, and the Dems. > > Bear in mind when reading it that it was written "on the fly" in the > midst of a discussion with a group of whom 90% of regular posters are > anti gun control in any form or to any degree and believe the Dems. are > socialists. This was written to counter a notion that was being > propounded there that gun control is a hallmark of the "Left's agenda". > > > =================== > > Gun control as a political platform on the left --and yes, although I've > argued against it over and over, for the present excirse I'll allow that > the Dems are to the left of the middle as a party (although we can all > point to groups within the Dem coalition that are more left than > that*)-- ... > > Anyway, where was I?... Oh, yes: > > Gun control as a political platform on the left is a fairly recent > development, as the idea itself is in American society as a whole. Not > too many decades ago, the notion that a man might grow up and not be > able to handle some sort of weapon -even if it was only his fists- was > preposterous. > > Every serious left political party had some semblance of a military > line. They all knew that the Revolution would be a shooting war. They'd > seen it was so - in Russia in 1917, but also closer to home in the > coalfields and picket lines, and they had the martyrs to prove it: Joe > Hill, Big Bill Haywood, those massacred in Everett, WA, Matewan, WV, etc. > > Moreover, drawing from the American, Russian, and later the Cuban > revolution, there had long been the notion on the Left that an armed > populace is a guarantee that the revolution would stay true and not > betray the people's trust. > > > Three things worked to move a big part of the left away from that, I > think, and they happened more or less at the same time: 1) the Civil > Rights struggle, with its emphasis on nonviolence; 2) the anti-Vietnam > War struggle; and 3) the actions of and ultimate fate of groups like the > Panthers, Weathermen, the New Year's Gang, etc. > > (1) produced a generation of progressives who were weaned on > nonviolence, not just as a tactic, but as a guiding principle of their > political and social activism; they combined with, and brought that > perspective into (2), which was a movement against a particular war, and > helped turn a significant portion of it into a general anti-war > movement. And (3) provided the "told you so" arguments for those who > proposed that violence a.- was not the appropriate strategy for that > time, b.- would only bring on repression and the decimation of The > Movement, and/or c.- never solves anything anyway. > > So, now you had widespread set of progressive and liberals who've had > nonviolence as a core element shaping their political consciousness. > > How did that get channeled into anti-gun politics? > > Again, I see three things -and this is from personal reflection of my > own observations and experiences over the years: > > 1) the general anti-war sentiment got strengthened by the heating up of > the Cold War; and the nuclear disarmament mobilizations in 1982, and > anti-nuclear power demos up to about 1984, in which nonviolent civil > disobedience was a key component, allowed transmittal of that > perspective on nonviolence to yet another generation which was cutting > its political eyeteeth in those movements. > > A part of that work -along with efforts toward peace in Central America- > was was an introspection along the lines of "what is it about us that > makes us so warlike as a society? and how can we get past that?" and > reaching back to Gandhi, King, and Cesar Chavez, and with participation > by Quakers, and Episcopal and Catholic clergy and lay workers, the > conclusion was that the answer was to move our communities away from > violence. That was encapsulated in the "Teach Peace" bumper sticker. > > 2) Coming out of the 1960s and 1970s there was still a legitimate and > present fear of the Klan and newer groups like the Order and Posse > Commitatus. The Greensboro massacre of 1979, in which the Klan shot up a > civil rights march, killing five, was a clear and present memory. The > gist around this issue, was that partly by passing and enforcing gun > laws, the powers that be could take the teeth out of a dying, lashing > out beast. > > 3) There was also an uptick coming out of the 1970s into the 1980s of > violent crime (remember NYC's reputation then?), particularly > gun-related deaths, including some high profile cases like Son of Sam, > Bernie Goetz, etc. The idea arose then, that if one could get the gov't > to enact and strictly enforce guns laws, one could dry up the supply of > handguns and thus reduce gun deaths. > > The proposals at that time, I recall, were strictly limited to handguns. > It wasn't "gun control" but "handgun control". The notion was that > handguns were different from other weapons in that they were "less > violent", in the sense that simply pointing and bending a trigger finger > doesn't elicit the same natural aversion that, say, stabbing or > bludgeoning engenders in the attacker, and thus lacked that natural > "safeguard", and that unlike rifles and shotguns that had other uses, > handguns were designed and made expressly to kill people. From there, it > is easy to see how that could get extended to military weapons (military > rifles were not a part of the landscape then) and guns in general. > > > So, why the Dems? > > Well, when the Civil Rights and Vietnam War generation grew up, those > who stayed politically active entered the party that was there with them > "in the fight", the party of the Kennedy's and the Civil Rights Act, the > party that was pro-Union, and which -in contradistinction to the likes > of Nixon, Goldwater, and later Reagan- positioned itself as the "peace > party." > > The older members of that set, were the generation of Tip O'Neal and Ted > Kennedy. The younger ones, now in their 50s and 60s, for whom gun > control was first raised when they were working at a local and state > level, inherited that mantle from the earlier generation (Brady Bill and > whatnot), and are now the senior members of the DNC. > > They were followed by another generation of liberals, now in their 30s > and 40s, who came of age in the Reagan and Clinton years and are now > being groomed to take over, and for whom gun control of some variety has > always been a part of the discussion as well as part of the Dem. platform. > > > So, in sum, gun control is not, and has not, historically been a part of > the Left's agenda, quite the opposite. > > However, gun control has become a part of the agenda of a part of the > American left, the liberal left, the which is now part of the > Establishment. Basically, the Dems. > > ======================== > > (* Note: This is a reference to a series of posts on the DSA caucus in > the Dem. Party) > > -- > - Juan > > ________________________________________________ > Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/causecollector%40msn.com ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
