/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Go back

Only bootlickers support gun regulations.

>>2473967
>aren't the left wing of capital pro-gun?
It depends if its profitable. Unless you're asking if the real movement against the present state of affairs is pro-gun? If you're asking that then you haven't read Marx:
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”

The US doesn't have a proletariat. There's only two classes in the US: the rich and the retards; bourgeoisie and temporarily embarrassed bourgeoisie. The Us population is a whole bunch of retarded lumpen npcs.

>>2473967
Perhaps the problem is that the U.S. is a highly capitalistic society based on individual self-interest. There is no sympathy for losers. If you're woke, you're a loser in 2025 because you lost the election, but the problem is – did these disagreements actually disappear? Did the people who oppose Charlie Kirk go away? Actually disagreements are inevitable so there needs to be basis for consensus and mutual trust. That has been weakened a lot. We're finding out that it doesn't work very well to be like "suck it, losers."

The state apparatus is also inherently violent. At the same time, the Constitution provides people with the tools to combat state violence, and perhaps this person identified Kirk with the American state. Perhaps the solution would be to arm Americans with small nuclear grenades to ensure mutually assured destruction. If everyone was equipped with a small nuclear bomb that triggers the moment you die, the blast wave would have also killed the shooter.

Depends. Reformist socialists like Democratic Socialists are often anti-gun much akin to liberals.
Even if you are a revolutionary socialist there is a massive gulf between an armed revolutionary vanguard or sensible legal ownership with sensible gun control measures versus whatever the fuck the USA is currently doing.
Plenty of European states like Finland and Austria have legal gun ownership, but you need to show a level of competence and sanity first.
America is a total outlier in terms of allowing any random crackhead neo-nazi to buy an assault rifle and gun down a school. I really think the average American cannot comprehend how different their gun culture is to any other place on Earth besides maybe Haiti and Somalia.

>>2473967
The age-old decision. Be subordinate to majoritarian rule by will or get whipped into subordination by force as they're most definitely armed aswell.

>>2473967
>>2474330
>>2474335
I will have to again leave a quote from Lenin here for those who are confused by clinging to the superstitions of the bourgeois state of not seeing the state as an instrument of one class to oppress another class and therefore are targets to be manipulated by opportunists:

<Secondly, civil war is just as much a war as any other. He who accepts the class struggle cannot fail to accept civil wars, which in every class society are the natural, and under certain conditions inevitable, continuation, development and intensification of the class struggle. That has been confirmed by every great revolution. To repudiate civil war, or to forget about it, is to fall into extreme opportunism and renounce the socialist revolution.

<Thirdly, the victory of socialism in one country does not at one stroke eliminate all wars in general. On the contrary, it presupposes wars. The development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly in different countries. It cannot be otherwise under commodity production. From this it follows irrefutably that socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will for some time remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois. This is bound to create not only friction, but a direct attempt on the part of the bourgeoisie of other countries to crush the socialist state’s victorious proletariat. In such cases, a war on our part would be a legitimate and just war. It would be a war for socialism, for the liberation of other nations from the bourgeoisie. Engels was perfectly right when, in his letter to Kautsky of September 12, 1882, he clearly stated that it was possible for already victorious socialism to wage “defensive wars”. What he had in mind was defense of the victorious proletariat against the bourgeoisie of other countries.

<Only after we have overthrown, finally vanquished and expropriated the bourgeoisie of the whole world, and not merely in one country, will wars become impossible. And from a scientific point of view it would be utterly wrong—and utterly unrevolutionary—for us to evade or gloss over the most important things: crushing the resistance of the bourgeoisie—the most difficult task, and one demanding the greatest amount of fighting, in the transition to socialism. The “social” parsons and opportunists are always ready to build dreams of future peaceful socialism. But the very thing that distinguishes them from revolutionary Social-Democrats is that they refuse to think about and reflect on the fierce class struggle and class wars needed to achieve that beautiful future.

[…]

<An oppressed class which does not strive to learn to use arms, to acquire arms, only deserves to be treated like slaves. We cannot, unless we have become bourgeois pacifists or opportunists, forget that we are living in a class society from which there is no way out, nor can there be, save through the class struggle. In every class society, whether based on slavery, serfdom, or, as at present, wage-labor, the oppressor class is always armed. Not only the modern standing army, but even the modern militia—and even in the most democratic bourgeois republics, Switzerland, for instance—represent the bourgeoisie armed against the proletariat. That is such an elementary truth that it is hardly necessary to dwell upon it. Suffice it to point to the use of troops against strikers in all capitalist countries.

<A bourgeoisie armed against the proletariat is one of the biggest fundamental and cardinal facts of modern capitalist society. And in face of this fact, revolutionary Social-Democrats are urged to “demand” “disarmament”! That is tantamount of complete abandonment of the class-struggle point of view, to renunciation of all thought of revolution. Our slogan must be: arming of the proletariat to defeat, expropriate and disarm the bourgeoisie. These are the only tactics possible for a revolutionary class, tactics that follow logically from, and are dictated by, the whole objective development of capitalist militarism. Only after the proletariat has disarmed the bourgeoisie will it be able, without betraying its world-historic mission, to consign all armaments to the scrap-heap. And the proletariat will undoubtedly do this, but only when this condition has been fulfilled, certainly not before.

<If the present war rouses among the reactionary Christian socialists, among the whimpering petty bourgeoisie, only horror and fright, only aversion to all use of arms, to bloodshed, death, etc., then we must say: Capitalist society is and has always been horror without end. If this most reactionary of all wars is now preparing for that society an end to horror, we have no reason to fall into despair. But the disarmament “demand”, or more correctly, the dream of disarmament, is, objectively, nothing but an expression of despair at a time when, as everyone can see, the bourgeoisie itself is paving the way for the only legitimate and revolutionary war—civil war against the imperialist bourgeoisie.

[…]

<On the question of a militia, we should say: We are not in favor of a bourgeois militia; we are in favor only of a proletarian militia. Therefore, “not a penny, not a man”, not only for a standing army, but even for a bourgeois militia, even in countries like the United States, or Switzerland, Norway, etc. The more so that in the freest republican countries (e.g., Switzerland) we see that the militia is being increasingly Prussianized, particularly in 1907 and 1911, and prostituted by being used against strikers. We can demand popular election of officers, abolition of all military law, equal rights for foreign and native-born workers (a point particularly important for those imperialist states which, like Switzerland, are more and more blatantly exploiting larger numbers of foreign workers, while denying them all rights). Further, we can demand the right of every hundred, say, inhabitants of a given country to form voluntary military-training associations, with free election of instructors paid by the state, etc. Only under these conditions could the proletariat acquire military training for itself and not for its slaveowners; and the need for such training is imperatively dictated by the interests of the proletariat. The Russian revolution showed that every success of the revolutionary movement, even a partial success like the seizure of a certain city, a certain factory town, or winning over a certain section of the army, inevitably compels the victorious proletariat to carry out just such a programme.

<Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1916, The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/miliprog/i.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/miliprog/ii.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/miliprog/iii.htm