******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
David once again misunderstands what I was saying. In the first place, regarding the alleged need to have guns to stand up to a repressive government: The far right most certainly takes that position, but they are not alone. I don't know where David has been, but I've seen many on the left take a similar position. It is an absolute fantasy which distracts from the classic Marxist position of winning over the "workers in uniform" (most importantly the National Guard, but NOT the police, who are not workers in uniform). David goes on at great length about Robert Williams and similar figures. I don't know what that has to do with what I wrote, unless he is implying that I believe in nonviolence as a principle. I never implied anything of the sort. Most telling about what he writes is his comment that the (armed) Redneck Revolt "were in Charlettesville [sic] during the car attack by the racist far right." Far from strengthening his argument, it does the exact opposite! What good did an armed group do there to prevent attacks on the anti-racists? None, whatsoever! We have to think this through. Imagine workers going on strike in an open carry state, one where bearers of arms are allowed to shoot somebody who presents a "danger" to them. Imagine open carry scabs trying to go through a picket line and being confronted by striking workers. David can say, "yes, but the strikers could carry guns too," but the reality is that in most of those situations they would not be using the guns first. They would be trying to block the scabs through physical resistance, through force of numbers. In such a situation, the scabs would be completely legal in shooting strikers. Yes, I know, they've done that many times before, but the open carry laws and the "self defense" laws make that much, much easier. There's another, all too real instance: Ferguson. There, shortly after the first few days of the mass protests, the Oath Keepers descended, offering guns to the "good people of Ferguson." What good would that have done? The police unleashed tear gas barrage after tear gas barrage at night and used the excuse that they'd heard gunshots. (I was there; the police were lying.) The presence of guns on the part of the protesters would not have helped in the least. All this talk of guns, by the way, serves as a distraction from what was really absent: The role of the unions, meaning the organized working class (what little of it remains). One UAW member I met there told me that his local leadership had told him, "This is not our fight". Can you imagine? Had the union leadership turned its membership out, that would have made the difference, not guns on the part of a few individuals. John Reimann -- *“How can we expect righteousness to prevail when there is hardly anyone willing to give himself up individually to a righteous cause? Such a fine sunny day, and I have to go, but what does my death matter, if through us thousands of people are awakened and stirred to action?” *Sophie Scholl, executed by the Nazis 2/22/1943. She was 21 years old. Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
