So, since Communists are revolutionary types, you guys believe that all citizens have the right to firearms, right...

So, since Communists are revolutionary types, you guys believe that all citizens have the right to firearms, right? That's one thing we can agree on, I guess.

Other urls found in this thread:

cnbc.com/2014/05/16/billionaires-are-smarter-study-says.html
fa-mag.com/news/rich-people-more-intelligent--study-says-14126.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Arm the poor, comrade.
spooky

yes we have to arm the proletariat.


also this

I guess we're not so different after all. We just have different bogeymen. Yours is the rich and the government, and mine is just the government.

The only good man is a dead man comrade.

If I ran for bourgois elections my platform would be one kalashnikov with every welfare check.

Leftists are generally much stronger supporters of gun rights than reactionaries. Pic is why.

The rich are "the government", wake up and filter your water.

Christ you people are dense

What does that even mean?

Not the rich. Successful entertainers and doctors and professional athletes and whatnot are themselves strictly speaking proletariat. The fruit of their labor is extracted away from them by capitalists the same as the rest of us.

Interesting. Any Communist books I should read to get a good understanding of it? I've read the Manifesto, that's it.

Just because someone has a higher "wage" does not make him wealthy. Wealth is about power projection and ability to exploit others.

But who controls the government, user?

Could start with Marx's Wage Labor and Capital, since its pretty light

Communists and in general most leftist worthy of the name do not believe in rights. However, as I understand it most radical leftists support the entire proletariat being armed to the teeth in order to seize the means of production. Soc Dem's, Dem Soc's and Liberals (even some conservatives) are in favor of tight gun control and having limited access to firearms in general.

So yeah this board is pro-gun ownership for the proles to protect themselves and seize the means of production.

Lol don't read the manifesto it's fucking garbage, just edgy shit they wrote when they were young. If you want to read Marx read Kapital

Tavistock

Just say "statist"

Yes.

the Tankies and Technocrats will descend upon me, I must mask my meaning with euphemisms

Damn right.

The 2nd Amendment is better because it most succinct and yet broader, and does not restrict itself to "workers" or "proletariats".

Tavistock and CFR are a good place to start

but obviously this board is convinced that its material conditions and the leviathan of Porky, so its pointless to even say Tavistock/RAND/CFR when no one here cares because no leftist groups or academics will listen to you if you start researching any of this stuff.

Lol no, no one will care for the same reason we don't care when someone comes whining about Soros specifically. We already know, and it's not even close to the whole story so we don't feel like unnecessarily narrowing the scope.

The truth is humanity has always been controlled by secret societies which have merely evolved into think tanks and so-called deep state. If you can control the perception of people and push them into paths.

Just like Liberals, reactionaries, conservatives, etc. are slaves to the bourgeois (Soros, Trump, groups and cabals, etc. so are the bourgeois slaves to their masters.

bullshit. The vast majority of posters here think that material conditions and the leviathan of capitalism explain everything. They have zero understanding of the depths of interlocking interests that transcend economics and politics which influences world events. I said Tavistock and CFR as a starting point, not as a theory or corpus of my understanding. Soros is one part, Tavistock is one part, Israel is one part, Zionism is one part, Fascism is one part. Its not simple and its not reducible to Capitalism and if we had multiple threads every day like certain boards used to we would quickly have ferreted out Bernie and Dear Leader

and they didn't used to be secret because they were the exoteric ruling castes of the ancient world :πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€πŸ€)

nope. guns are cancer. they add absolutely nothing of value to the planet

but nvm. i guess we need to keep them so hicks can shoot coke bottles and defenseless animals and the revleft can pretend to be macho and incite their 02169012906016190601 failed revolution

Thanks for the laugh Holla Forums πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

I've seen people hint at this before. TBH I know jack shit about Tavistock. But its pretty obvious that even amongst capitalists there's echelons, and some super seedy groups at top that are more untouchable than others. Petty bourg vs uber-bourg

Well, you can't just delete guns? Also, guns are very valuable. Do you think that just the government should own guns?

They probably will regardless, but there's no reason to enshrine their right.

The rich are just as deserving of rights as the poor.

still thinking in terms of class when you should be thinking in terms of CASTE, HINDU CASTE my friend, not Marxian class

They are a caste unto themselves, have you ever tried looking at who owns Goldman Sachs? I'll give you a hint its not a person, its not even a few people. Go look at who owns the majority of the shares. Now go look at every other major institute or firm. Now go look at who owns whatever owns those firms. I'll give you a few hours to go do some fun research. I bet you won't find Rothschild, I bet you won't find Soros, I bet you won't find any names. I bet you'll figure out what I'm getting at ;) remember the cap stone is separated from the rest of the pyramid. Look up shell corporation while you're at it ;)

You're gonna have a lot of fun

The bourgeoisie are deserving of the gulag and the wall, and nothing more.

The capitalist class exist as a parasite on the vast majority of the world, systematically plunging billions into grinding poverty while subverting government across the globe to create a corrupt despotic oligarchy. Complaining about their rights is like complaining about the rights of a genocidal dictator when his people rise up and lynch him.

Even if you think them oppressive, are you not as bad as they by putting them through such torture. Do you not remember the brain drain? There is a reason that the wealthy are typically intelligent.

It's hyperdimensional beings, everybody knows this.

The wealthy are no more intelligent than your averge prole. You sound like one of those monarchists who unironically believed that their king/queen was some kind of godly being that singlehandidly protected them from foreign invasion and made sure that they had something to eat each day when in fact the opposite was true. We proved this by raped, murdering and/or executing every monarch who was dumb enough to still claim and use their "divine right to rule."

not an argument


op was askng about citizens, though.. re gov: yea as a transitory phase until non-lethal weaponry is powerful enough to replace guns. (ofc not enough investment in that field currently.) but once it gets to the point that they're powerful and practical enough to crack down on gun-toting jihadists/militias/fascists/maoists/gangbangers without killing them – what purpose would they serve?

I don't give a shit about the wealthy.

I said the bourgeoisie, not upper income earner.

The bourgeoisie are class enemies and parasites on the working class, but the wealthy can be friends.

😹😹😹

the rich dont lobby or even helm the government themselves

That's not the same. Royalty is by blood. Wealth is by work or by inheritance, and if you inherit wealth from, say, your parent, you may have also inherited their intelligence that made it easier for them to prosper so greatly. The rich are therefore more likely to be intelligent.

The wealthy basically run every single western state. There's a pretty interesting study about this which showed that in America the policy preferences of the wealthy could essentially predict the legislative behavior of congress while those of the rest of the country had almost no effect.

...

do you have a source, such as statistics, or is it all muh feels?

bonus points if you can distinguish between correlation and causation. For instance, the rich can send their kids to better schools. Did they actually "inherit" that intelligence in a scientific sense?

If Paris Hilton is talentless, then why is she so good at making money. That's a talent. She also manages a huge hotel company. Being a CEO is not a mindless job in which you just have people do all the work for you. Also, Nikola Tesla was impoverished because he failed to make money. He had merits, but was not good at making money.

He's Holla Forums

cnbc.com/2014/05/16/billionaires-are-smarter-study-says.html
fa-mag.com/news/rich-people-more-intelligent--study-says-14126.html

No, I'm not.

meritocracy at its finest. But hell, capitalism truly is an engine of progress, isn't it?


of course, obvious bait is obvious bait but I can't help it

Then you are legitimately retarded, mentally.

We're hitting levels of classcuckery that shouldn't even be possible.

I bet you shit yourself in anger when you hear about poor people gaming the welfare system too.

Read the rise of meritocracy by Micheal Young you retard

wealth is about possessing wealth.

Shut up dad I'm using my talent to take your resources I'm a NEET proπŸ˜‚

Yes. Money is not wealth.

I do. Welfare is evil. She's not a leech. She produces. Nobody is forced to work for her. They are actually excited by the muh privilege of it, I'd bet.

Your bait is getting sloppy fam

It's not bait. Give me one reason that you are better than Paris Hilton or any less of a "leech".

we're pretty different, user. it's nice to see someone trying to bridge the gap here just cause I'm sure you mean well. but no if you're a lolbert u probably won't find much support from lefties aside from certain particularly trashy anarchists.

I'm not a walking bag of STDs, for starters

Oh this is rich.

"Kiss up, kick down" at its purest and most blatant.

"Kiss u

Because you're a virgin LOL.

Typo there, whoops.

I have a full time job doing something socially useful.

She basically gets paid for being famous, if that. She probably has a big trust fund like most bourgeois brats.

It's not kicking "up" or "down". In my ideal society, everyone is equal by law.

The only thing that makes men equal is death.

How is providing hotels not useful? Also, who are you to define what is useful? If society pays her to be an actress and a model and what not, then it looks like they've deemed her to be useful. I'm glad that you have a job, though.

...

Actually producing shit instead of contributing to the spectacle

Thanks mr government agency man.

What? I hate the government.

Mein gott. These levels of cognitive dissonance shouldn't be possible

Paris Hilton hasnt provided hotels to anyone. She doesn't own Hilton Hotels, that business was created by her grandfather. Though, it should be noted that the Hilton family hasn't provided hotels to anyone either. Their workers did everything, they just sucked up the profits.

πŸ€”

They had the idea to exploit people for temporary housing so they deserve 90% of the profit.

*slaves

the hotels were built by literal slaves

you might think this is a one-off thing but literally every successful business is built on the backs of slave labor. and i dont mean wage slaves.

I thought rights were sort of natural things that people could do, so we should let people do them, as long as they don't hurt anyone else in doing so.
Or is this fucking stupid?

Rights are social arrangements and nothing more. Natural law is bunk.

I wouldn't agree that Paris Hilton produces anything of value, but the means by which she gets money is by people paying attention to her, advertisers paying to have their ads put next to things she's in, and she gets some of the ad money, if I understand it right.
So the problem is that people pay attention to her in the first place.
Also, I wouldn't say welfare is evil, but I'd say it's in this weird in between place where it just keeps people poor instead of helping them out of poverty. They need mental health professionals to help these people, better schools, and they need to be in a safe environment. Apparently something like 30% of the population commits 80% of all crime, so they need to crack down harder on violent criminals so everyone else can live in peace.

Maybe I shouldn't've added the word 'natural' to that sentence.
Rights are things that people can do, so impeding people doing those things, as long as they aren't things that hurt themselves or other people, we should let them do them.

The only way to get the poor out of poverty is to overthrow the system that depends on their poverty to maintain itself.

Rights are statements which we give power by believing in them and pretending they were real. They are not, in fact, real, just like religion, gender, and race.

Many rights (to free speech, to free assembly, etc., but not to property) are excellent goals to achieve, but rather than lazily saying "I want this, let's write it down and hope people listen", anarchists propose that we rebuild society on the foundations of institutions which are conducive to this - institutions based on voluntary face-to-face democracy in government and meeting human needs in economics.
Why do I single out property? Well, it's not so much describing a goal as it is describing an institution, an institution founded upon taking away the means of sustenance of all people for oneself to systematically fleece them. You look at almost all primitive societies, they're all communistic. You look at what arises when you suddenly remove state and property (pirate ships which pioneered constitutional democracy, democratic soviets in the Russian Revolution before Lenin turned them into rubber stamp parliaments, etc.), you see people organize communism, the common goal of anarchists and Marxists. All men contribute to production - nothing around you was produced by a single man or a single firm. What is produced is therefore all theirs in equal measure. Property is theft!

Gender is real though. There are objective differences, on average, between people born with xx chromosomes and xy chromosomes.

But that's sex.

Yes.
I think the stance on gun control ultimately has more to do with authoritarian vs libertarian than left vs right, as much as both of those spectrums are memes and dont fully adequately describe politics.
If you think power should be decentralized and there shouldnt be any powerful central government, it kind of becomes necessary for everyone to have guns.
So tankies and hitler grabbed guns but lolbergs and libertarian socialists think people should have guns.

But then what do you mean? Social expression? Even then I think that there are general trends that each sex follows. I don't think you can easily separate gender expression and sex, there are outliers but on average I think most people do act the way they do because of the hormones their bodies are producing.
I suppose you could say that it's a matter of culture imposing these ways of acting on people, but even in different cultures masculinity and femininity are kind of similar.

Bah, if it isn't easily defined and all you have are "trends" then it's bullshit. Go sex or go home.

Here lies the root of the problem with gender versus sex and why I hate having to address it (besides that it's by definition addressing idpol): how do you objectively define where sex (innate biological nature) ends and gender (arbitrary societal norms imposed on the phenotypical basis of sex) begins? No one can tell. I'm already regretting bringing this up at all.

At the least, I can say that the SJW trannies (those who do it because they are convinced by SJWs) are mentally ill because "identifying" with the other "gender" means that you're so immersed in idpol that it warps the way you perceive the physical world, both yourself and what's around it. Unsure about the ones with legit desires to change sex from birth onwards, they should probably seek mental treatment instead of a sex change, it would probably be cheaper, less stigmatizing in the end, and deal a big blow to idpol.

Either way, it's irrelevant when you consider that the world is ending due to capitalism-driven climate change and automation will make people starve instead of being able to live in material plenty without work. I would gladly screw over trannies and blacks and other minorities (some of which I'm a part of) in the aggregate if it mean getting social conservatives onto the side of socialists in saving the whole human race. I hope it doesn't come to that, though. What can we do?

...

You could argue exactly the same for Kings and Queen, since some grand-grand-grand-father must have been intelligent enough to become king.

Also rights are spooks

WEW LAD, overdosed a little too hard on the spooks this last night, eh?

why does that picture work