What are some good leftist arguments against gun control?
I mean the libs do make good arguments for gun control, but the fact of the matter is that letting the government take away guns would further the oppression of leftist groups. Is the real solution to make guns left wing again and fight against reactionary american gun culture?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
The best arguement for lose gun controls is Serbia.
“More people are killed by getting punched in the head, than an AR-15, now get the fuck outta my face faggot”.
what are you talking about, whats going on in serbia?
F U N.
anyways,
Leftist arguments against gun control won't work on liberals, not even the ones who call themselves "socialists" or "communists" to be edgy, because they are not just us but less extreme, they're really an entirely different political strain.
They believe that only cops and soldiers should have guns. If you tell them poor people should go on strike with fully automatic weapons and mow the fucking pigs down if they try to interfere they'll be shocked call you a violent terrorist extremist.
I don't think you can do mass murders with a Knife or a Hammer. Meanwhile, you can just climb up a building and snipe the fuck out of a bunch of people with your assault rifle.
Shooting down the workers is admitting they have no argument against their system. Even with guys, no one can force you to work.
they aren't though
Tbh I just like guns
Stabbing =/= Murder
What does this mean?
fuck off my board ghandi
ban all semi-automatics with scary military features like pistol grip and bayonet mount
Then the correct response is "Shut the fuck up, liberal".
If they shoot down workers, how are they gonna get the workers to sell their labour to the borgeouise? I say, the only thing that keeps people into wage slaving is the pleasure proposed by society, not the fear.
And enriching the Gun lobby so you can feel some false sense of power is any better? Such is what passes off as "Leftist" Nowadays…
You can survive a gunshot too
Much harder, and a Automatic Rifle can shot many people at the same.
Even if assault weapons are banned for citizens, it doesn't ban them for the police. The population won't have any real way of defending themselves from a hostile police force. It's creates a literal police state.
automatics are banned from import and manufacture and are hellishly expensive.
They make no good arguments, just pretty infographics and desperate moral appeal videos. If they cared about being honest, they would have dropped their argument after they recognized that gun control doesn't actually lower the total homicide or crime rate, just the total gun homicide rate, from which a majority used illegally purchased handguns. But they don't care about that because they'll just cite the gun death figure, a stat which counts accidental gun death and suicide as self inflicted homicide and shooting in self-defense as homicide in self-defense, as a source for why "assault weapons" should be banned, which is a "gun" that under there own definition of it has killed people in the few hundreds to low 1,000 in a country of more then 300 million guns. There is also no shown correlation between homicide and gun ownership, Vermont is a good example of this with its extremely lax gun laws and relatively low violent gun homicide rate. In fact, in every city or country that instituted a ban or buy back the homicide rate and/or assault rate remained either at similar levels as before or increased (see pics). Guns bans have historically done absolutely nothing to actually reduce deaths or assaults, its all moral posturing.
Not even the Arab Insurgents, with their Rifles and IEDs can take on the USDA, you think you soyboy Westerners will do anything? The only way to take down a tyrant government is through civil disobedience.>>2452189
GHANDI GET THE FUCK OUT
What are these Mass Shooting happening every week then? Are Americans too poor to buy Rifles, eh? What are Submachine guns, shotguns, Automatic pistols with high-caliber, anyway?
They're using semi-automatics you dolt. Not one of the recent shooters used a full auto weapon except the las vegas one who used a bump stock.
You can't buy sub machine guns in the USA anymore.
And to those who say "But the state is more armed then us, there is no point", your basically saying you would rather watch your friends or co-revolutionaries be seized or executed and do nothing then to have a gun and have a fighting chance at all. In addition, a revolution is easier when the working class has easier access to firearms then less, otherwise its a convoluted mess of trying to rush store-houses armed with nothing but what little you can get off the black market, organizing complicated heists in which people may die before even getting to the revolutionary stage, using whatever money you can scour up to smuggle weapons from outside, or setting up clandestine machining areas to assemble kits and mill receivers which can be seized at moments notice.
Gun control is RACIST and used primarily to disarm minority communities on behalf of white supremacist groups so that events like the Tulsa race """"riot"""" can take place with the fewest white casualties.
It honestly rustled me when you said bump stock and full-auto in the same sentence, please don't do that
The proletariat should always be armed so it can overthrow the bourgeoisie, disarmament just plays into their hands. Not sure how this argument would play with normalfags, but it is pretty sound imo. Simple but true
Its technically not full auto but their isn't a hige difference.
If they are attacking with Stealth Jets, Helicopters, Armored Vehicles, Drones Chemical, Biologica Weapons; What difference would my petty pocket gun do? (You say Rifles are expensive…) If you wanted equality, you woudn't support capitalism in the first place.
Also, Imagine thinking giving your money to porky is revolutionary..
Furthermore, Is this board even Leftist anymore? Someone even posted about Reagan in positive light.
I'm from a third world country (puerto rico) and it's freakishly hard to get a weapon here. Drug cartels here have weapons that the police wish they had, so every so often the governor orders assistance of the national guard to "aide" police.
Cartels sell weapons too, dirty ones. Any thief, rapist, politician, any idiot can buy it from one of these guys. Making it easy to kill and to get away with it. Gun laws are so strict here that if you LEGALLY have a weapon and you use it against a criminal on self defense you will most likely go to jail for murder. You basically have no authority to kill for defense, not even if they break into your house. Thanks to laws passed down to combat the criminals, they've disarmed the citizens and removed their rights to self defense against the cartels, now we're defenseless against every criminal and think 4 times before we pull the trigger to kill someone who is robbing us at gun point.
This is from an island 100x30 miles. 3 million population. Higher homicides than any area in the mainland.
One time… A 'sicario' ( contracted assassin ) open fired in a public place spraying bullets to his target and also everybody else around. This was in the highly populated metroplex area would you would assume a citizen who can legally carry would be armed. Turns out there were armed citizens there. Not one dared to fire a bullet because of the current laws. It's about the same as NOT having a damn gun. The criminals who DO use it for wrong, WILL use it. All of these assassins would DIE if they try to assassinate in public because of armed citizens.
tl;dr - DON'T DISARM THE PEOPLE! Gun control only feeds real criminals. Assault weapons or handguns, same shit. They are weapons, both can kill. If everyone were trained to shoot and disciplined to handle weapons, I promise you my virgin ass you'd end sociopaths going ape shit in crowded areas.
You dumb American liberal shits need to step out of the country and examine areas that REALLY do have problems. Learn from it. It doesn't matter ' dis is murica ' first world. Your filthy girly ways are penetrating into this little island, and now we have Tekashi looking kids all over the place.
Yeah, not sure how people who call themselves communists expect to win class warfare without weapons.
Automatic rifles are outrageousuly expensive because of the laws prohibiting making or importing them.
shoot yourself with a gun.
The term is starting to get overused, but they're just LARPing if they don't wanted proles armed. I mean Lenin even pointed out that "The supersession of the bourgeois state by the proletarian state is impossible without a violent revolution."
It's the truth, though. If you are enjoying the comfort capitalism is proposing you, then how can you even hope to dethrone it? You're pretty much saying you're enjoying the way things are going…
Lenin forbid arms, though. Except for people in the countryside.
This all sound like a subversive way for the world to embrace Americanism and Neoliberalism.
Maybe they th ink the 'revolution' will be metaphorical, a revolution in the same sense as that girl on twitter who characterized calling random characters from fiction trans as "revolutionary queerness" meant it.
ｓｈｏｏｔ ｙｏｕｓｅｌｆ
user, your hurting me
So lets just lay on the ground to be shot, got ya. Also, lets apparently just ignore all previous and ongoing insurgencies and resistances, especially in the Middle East and South America as evidence that you can mount an effective resistance against superiorly armed forces.
I have a feeling your a falseflag, because communism isn't about equality
Stop being lifestylist
He didn't, he was saying that Regan supported disarmament.
Pretty sure this was bait now
Bad praxis
It's not like he wasn't lying about Reaganomics.
How about that AND being armed once the cops come to your home to fuck you up for civil disobedience.
Yeah, "Lifestyleism" like Evading tax, going on a strike, or boycotting a corporation doesn't work! Go eat McDonalds and wait for Capitalism to end!
tell me, how are you posting here right now?
With a computer.
and who made that computer?
did you pay money for it?
you better not tell me its a fucking apple, btw.
Yes Yes.
So you bought the computer from a for profit company, and it was made under capitalism, then. Your purchasing it directly supported a tech corporation.
Yes, but i'm not saying i'm working for Socialism. If the goal is to break the status quo, you'd need to be radical and stuff, it's not like saying Lifestyleism is useless, otherwise, you're giving up on it before you even tried.
If people like buying shiny things, then be upfront about it. I just don't say i'm gonna destroy capitalism (AKA, the state) by paying taxed goods.
So you're unironically saying that one is not allowed to use things made by capitalists under capitalism to work against capitalism.
Wars aren't won with flashy weaponry. If you believe so, turn your eyes to a decade in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wars are won by crushing the spirit of the enemy. America's big. It's infrastructure is in the toilet. There are many little pockets of resistance across various locales, climates, and environments.
You were never "leftist". You were capitalist and bourgeois supporting in disguise.
Now go tell me all about how the cost of meat should rise to such point so the poor cannot eat it anymore, "for the environment" "for animal rights".
"For the environment" let's just cull off all the proles anyway. You disarmed them, why not kill them off to greenify Earth? Cap the population at 500 million like the Georgia Guidestones said.
You're a tool. A very disgraceful tool. And you don't realize your own utility as a tool.
Idpol is as idpol does.
did you mean to reply to the poster I was replying to?
The more money you give to the state, the more empowered it is. The more it can exert force or coercion on the population, and when you hit a certain level, the state will have supreme power that no one can stop it.
Stop sympathizing with the cops
"For the environment" just abandon social revolution and let the bourgeois handle everything
What is your practical solution then?
depends on who you are arguing with
if its a boomer or something then SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
if its a liberal then UNDER NO PRETEXT
if its a nadsee then tell them you wont let the jews take away your gun and will protect your family at all costs
I mean I get what you're saying and agree with you in principle but I think everyone today helps prop up the current system, willingly or not. Doesn't mean it still can't be directly fought
This
liberals don't like marx
What is Vietnam?
What is Afghanistan?
What is Iraq?
What is Syria?
What is all insurgencies since the dawn of man?
YEAH GUESS WHAT. They used weapons.
I don't have one, if people are comfortable in the current system, then maybe capitalism has a point.
Blue lives dont matter
Serbia has the second highest rate of gun ownership in the world and fairly low levels of gun violence
How am I meant to line up counter-revolutionaries and shot them into a Trench without a gun?
Other then that just tell them it's capitalism it's mindset and lack of available mental health which causes people to go on insane rampages.
If you want idpol shitlibs to accept guns, you have to make it about something they care about.
Those guns the "missing" weapons from the wars.
To have a gun in serbia, let alone carry it around you have to jump through a lot of hoops.
And I can't actually remember, but if you do have a permission to carry one on you, you have to prove every 3months that you needed it.
that sounds like BS. Tell once a year and I'll believe you.
why would i want the enemy to have guns
Are wood chippers commonly used to murder? I can only find one case, and even there it was used to dispose of the dead body, not to murder.
Why would any socialist support the disarmament of the working class?
Liberalism and social democracy are very hard to get rid of from your “moral beliefs” even after you’ve radicalized.
I think that there is a side to the guns/civilians with weapons debate that is rarely discussed, at least from the disarmament side of the debate.
From my perspective, the belief that a population will ultimately be safer if they are unilaterally disarmed is contingent on the belief that their state/government is both willing and able to always step in to protect its citizenry, not just in times when things are good, but in the bad times too - in times of disaster, be that natural or economic, terroristic or trade-related, small-time criminal or international organized syndicate.
Among the liberals that I talk to in person I don't get the overwhelming sense of faith in the police to protect them. Some liberals are, I think, more aware of this than others, but I don't know if I've ever heard gushing praise for the righteousness and efficacy of the police in the US from a liberal. Sometimes they are more sympathetic to movements like BLM, or are otherwise enraged by racism and things like civil asset forfeiture coming from the police force, and other times I hear a sentiment akin to 'yes, well, it is a difficult job but someone has to do it'.
Yet, in the same conversation, I will hear the sentiment that these people, the police, should be solely responsible for society's protection. This is the disconnect that I have trouble understanding, and more trouble showing to people who exhibit it. That people can at one moment criticize the police for being trigger-happy racists, thugs and thieves, pseudo-military wannabees with hard-ons for authority and violence, yet at the same time put their personal safety and the safety of their children/family/friends in the hands of these people who they resoundingly didn't trust just a minute ago.
From my perspective, the police should not be implicitly trusted as the sole protectors of a region by any population. Even in good times the police will at least occasionally behave in ways that can only be called corrupt, as tends to happen in any bureaucracy of size with any measure of authority. In bad times this only becomes worse. An armed community with even just a small amount of weapons training is able to be its own first line of defense in the case of disasters and hardships (and is subsequently able to work WITH a police force to protect itself, instead of being entirely dependent on a police force for protection). An unarmed, untrained community is subject to the whims of any better-equipped force that seeks to exert force over it.
Pic kind of related. I'm surprised nobody else has posted it yet.
No they don't.
They don't make even half decent arguments for throwing away the keys to our collective liberation. They never make a good argument for eliminating any hope for democracy by removing real political power, that is to say arms and ammunition, from the hands of the majority. They can't use statistics properly, if they did they'd not be proponents of gun control for the purposes of reducing violence. They ignore the fact that guns are the best way for women to protect themselves from violence against men who are stronger and for minorities to protect themselves from an often times hateful majority. They're blind to the irony of self identifying as a "leftist" and trying to erode rights.
Indeed. It is purely terror-management for them. They drop off their kids at school and can't help but think about all the scary stories that are on the news about gunmen in schools. Media is good at creating this kind of a fear-association.
However, of all the things that kill the average Ameri-lard, from a sedentary lifetime of consuming shitty fast-foods and sugar slimes, breathing polluted air and drinking tainted water, to the physical and mental stress from working shitty jobs with no vacation or hope of retirement, to self-inflicted damage through cigarettes, alcohol, and opiates, not to mention car accidents going between all of these things, gun violence is tiny tiny fraction of what is harming people, yet it is the most immediately frightening, and definitely the easiest to scare-monger for.
I think that liberals, especially liberal parents, tend to come to the gun-control issue from the same sort of parenting perspective that they raise children with - that if there's a scary no-no in the house that you don't want the kid to be anywhere near, then you simply either put it out of reach of the children or remove it from the house entirely - and problem solved!
That's not really applicable in the same way from a civilization/society level perspective, but that would require nuance, thinking from a differing point of view, and a broad understanding of history and peoples, which is something that most people, not just liberals, lack in abundance. No, they will double-down on a seemingly-simple solution that makes them feel good. Much like American conservatives and Trump's border wall, it sounds like a good plan to simple people who want to punish other people that they don't like, regardless of the ultimate consequences.
Non-burger here, anyone who seriously thinks they're gonna win a revolution in the very heart of imperialism with their little AR is a goddamn idiot. Sure, some third-world farmers with rusty AK's managed to resist the US, but they also got slaughtered in droves, and the only reason they "won" is because the US decided to cut its losses. If the US ever faces an actual existential threat, you'll bet your ass that they're gonna do everything in their power to stop it, and small arms are not gonna cut it then. The only thing you can really hope for is that the military sides with the revolution, like it did in Russia, and/or that the revolution is accompanied by the total collapse of the state, like in Russia.
That said, the problem with mass shooting isn't that guns exist, though they obviously enable them, the problem is that Americans are the most fucked up people in the entire world, with the worst gun culture. In every other country, from third-world shithole to Sweden, guns are seen as a tool, either for hunting and sport or for fighting in an actual war. Only in the US are guns seen as this symbol of power and manliness, to be hidden away in anticipation for the day when you have to defend your home against the robbers/terrorists/blacks/government. It doesn't matter that you're never actually gonna use it: you'll sit in your shitty suburban house, work at your shitty alienated job, and all the while you're just itching for the moment when you can pick up that gun and shoot someone to death, which will never happen. When that's your attitude to guns, is it any wonder that some stupid kid decides to actually use it?
sup nsa
So you'd rather have nothing at all and be subject to everything the state has to throw at you with no hope of fighting back? K.
Take a guess what people were armed with and using then.
They don't "enable" anything.
The rest of your post is just moral posturing with no actual arguments or stats.
...
t. bourgeoisie
UNDER NO PRETEXT
Guns, but they sure as hell weren't stashing them in their homes. The bolsheviks won because they had the support of the soldiers.
Are you that retarded? If you don't have guns you can't shoot anyone, thus having guns enables you to shoot people. But that doesn't mean that guns=mass shootings, the problem is that you burgers have a worse attitude to guns than fucking Somalians.
Yet women here also have guns… Is there really any better tool for a woman to wield against a man or a group of men that would seek to do her harm? What would you suggest as an effective alternative?
I'd say your post was correct in one way - that it is pretty much impossible to out-violence a modern state. Though I doubt that anyone seriously considering revolutionary action believes that it can be facilitated strictly through small-arms. I'd say that's a straw-man.
Rather, I'm more concerned less from a revolutionary perspective and more for a perspective of protection from whatever groups of desperate people that might form during any kind of civil conflict or other regional disaster. People which have had decades of access to these weapons. Again, I think that this is the implicit thinking of 'bad things will never ever happen so stop worrying and give up your only real means of protection' argument. It implies that there could never possibly be any major disaster or civil crisis, or heck, even just small groups of extremist assholes of one flavor or another (KKK for example) that could possibly seek you out and desire to do you harm, or that if there is a crisis in your area that the government will always be 100% able to take you in and care of you, to guarantee your food and safety (and that of your elderly/sick family, pets, possessions, home?).
Call me cynical, but I don't trust the governments of the world nor the general population of any country, especially when the chips are down, the power is out, and they can't just go to the store to buy food, and when the police are too preoccupied with evacuations to respond to every call they get. Perhaps that is a cynicism born out of studying history or from living through a few regional disasters in my life, but either way, I do sleep better knowing that I'm about as capable of defending myself and my wife as any other (male) asshole out there.
t. armed lesbian
The heart of revolutionary potential is the real ability to resist oppression, that is, arms and ammunition.
What you're arguing for is a gutting of the power of the average person and a greater disparity of power in favor of the bourgeois state in response to a problem that can be eradicated by socialism.
Nice.
t. armed transwoman
Great video
Do quote where I said that we should take away everyone's guns. Every western state in the world has tighter gun laws than the US, and the people there still do a much greater job resisting the bourgeois state than you burgers. That alone should be testament to how little guns actually matter. No matter how many guns you have, the state is always gonna outgun you. If you ever decide to actually use those guns the state will do everything in its power to crush you, and it will win, that simple. The revolutionary power of the proletariat isn't guns, it's labour and solidarity, and the heart of revolutionary potential is class struggle. Your country has lots of guns, but the proletariat is weaker than in any country in the entire world, because labour is weak and you've forgotten everything about class struggle.
Now, I like guns, I think they're interesting and I have no illusions that we'll get anywhere by disarming everyone, but guns=/=revolution just as guns=/=shootings. If you want revolution, you're better off engaging in class struggle than stashing guns and waiting for the collapse.
Fam, I don't disagree with you, but I can't really relate. I've never once felt that I would be any safer with a gun, I'm infinitely more likely to die in an accident than to violence, and I've never felt I needed one. If shit goes down, I have my comrades, and they can keep me safe in many more ways than just killing other people.
But i don't know, maybe I just live in a safe country.
Lmao. You Euro fucks are letting privatization take hold. You ain't resisting shit.
Individually, yes. However, with armed solidarity of the workers, how could the state hope to win? How could the state enforce anything in the face of armed and organized labor?
It's easier to organize people than it is to materialize power to enforce your class conscious will when you've sold that power away for moralizing good belly feels.
Guns don't necessarily equal revolution, but they enable it.
Small arms let us seize larger arms and allow us to defend ourselves long enough to create more.
Once again, you're arguing against a problem of capitalism, that mindset of waiting for disaster.
Or you just hate Americans wholesale and want to make digs at them whenever you can so you can feel superior while the rights your labor movement has won get sold out from underneath your feet.
One of the two.
Keep you safe with what?
We're doing far more than you ever have, fam, but just keep pretending you're gonna start the revolution.
Airstrikes. In all seriousness, I might concede your point if you actually had anything even resembling a movement, but as it stands you're gonna have to wage that protracted peoples war from your backyard.
Lemme guess, you still think I'm some evil lib who wants to take away all your guns? Just because guns are controlled where I live doesn't mean there aren't any, and once things start falling apart there are gonna be guns everywhere. In such a situation, safety in numbers means a lot. Guns can't help you if you're hurt, or if you're sick, people can.
Oh really?
What have you won lately? What have you lost?
Works great half a world away but really easy to spin against the government in the homeland.
So you're saying that I do have a point, since socialism is gradually gaining ground here, or at least the notion of it in addition to class consciousness.
It's either that, or you're saying a whole lot of nothing we aren't already aware of while simultaneously defeatist.
You tell me, mate. We're about to have a massive labour struggle involving about a third of our country's workforce and our socialists are gaining ground, in a country that is already way ahead of you. But of course, it's not like you actually know about anything going on here.
Oh, you mean after they've already bombed you? That sure is comforting. So what you're basically saying is that you can't do shit and all you can hope for is to become a martyr after you inevitably get stomped.
Oh you mean those socdems who also want to take the guns? I'm impressed. Now how do you plan on making them join the revolution?
I'd say the country aspect of it is somewhat relative. The US is pretty large and pretty unequal when it comes to wealth and security - there's parts of it that are quite 'safe' in that there are heavily armed police and private security monitoring the area, and there are places that are extremely dangerous, that the police basically won't go to. There's still small communities where 'everyone knows everyone' that are also quite safe if due to nothing other than low population and a general sense of community, though those areas have been shrinking and withering due to general urbanization in the country (partly due to people needing to go to cities to get any kind of job) as well as meth and opiates hitting these rural communities really hard in recent decades.
In any case, I'm glad we don't disagree on the substance of this, despite our different backgrounds, histories, and nationalities/raised culture, though I would add that, if you've never lived through a significant regional disaster disaster before (because I've never lived through a civil conflict as some have, though I assume it's somewhat like what I went though with a lot more death and horror) that it is a truly enlightening experience regarding the human condition in times of great stress and fear. It certainly made me think about life and personal security differently.
If you've never read this account from a guy who lived through the Bosnian war before it is kinda' relevant to our topic of discussion - of what life looks like in the middle of a sustained conflict/revolution/disaster. I'd recommend it to anyone interested in the discussion.
Dunno, I don't know shit about your country because I don't know what's you live.
So why don't you educate the poor old backwards burger?
What it means is that it works good once but won't work well twice.
If they're actually socialist you're able to explain the necessity of arms to them. If they're not socialist you start with the economics and then refer to my previous sentence.
Again, you're saying nothing except insulting shit for the sake of being insulting.
It's asinine.
I don't know where*
Typo.
guns are good, gringo fetishization of guns is the problem
After the strongest hurricane in recorded history tore my country to pieces i can safely say things were a week from becoming what this bosnian man wrote, just without the shelling, of course.
Anyone who opposes gun is a cuckold
Thanks for the article, it was pretty enlightening.
I live in Denmark. Sorry for being an ass. You're right, things aren't really great for socialists anywhere. That said, I still believe you're not gonna get anywhere with armed resistance: once SWTF, the state will take your guns, as that Bosnian fellow can attest to. Even if you try to resist, they got guns, training, and numbers, and you don't, even if you have a movement.
You aint ever lived through a social calamity, you west-euros are pampered through and through
It's okay. I still think that if armed resistance won't do anything here, unarmed certainly won't. Our main focus must be on organizing and recruiting while resisting any attempts to erode our rights.
And, I'm sorry too, since we're still on the same side.
what if you need both. maybe the movement needs Malcolm and Martin not one or the other.
I suppose so. If only for the fact that it makes getting new people on board easier. After all, it's a smaller leap from believing in Martin to thinking Malcolm is necessary than from disagreeing entirely to throwing your lot in with Malcolm.
liberals confirmed racist
most consistent expression of the struggle against all militarism and against all war.
cannot, without ceasing to be socialists, be opposed to all war.
The bourgeoisie of the imperialist "Great" Powers has become thoroughly reactionary,
and the war this bourgeoisie is now waging we regard as a reactionary, slave-owners' and
criminal war. But what about a war against this bourgeoisie? A war, for instance, waged
by peoples oppressed by and dependent upon this bourgeoisie, or by colonial peoples, for
liberation? In Section 5 of the Internationale group these we read: "National wars are no
longer possible in the era of this unbridled imperialism."
colonial wars. But what we Europeans, the imperialist oppressors of the majority of the
world's peoples, with our habitual, despicable European chauvinism, call "colonial wars"
are often national wars, or national rebellions of these oppressed peoples. One of the
main features of imperialism is that it accelerates capitalist development in the most
backward countries, and thereby extends and intensifies the struggle against national
oppression. That is a fact, and from it inevitably follows that imperialism must often give
rise to national wars. Junius, who defends the above-quoted "theses" in her pamphlet,
says that in the imperialist era every national war against an imperialist Great Power
leads to intervention of a rival imperialist Great Power. Every national war is this turned
into an imperialist war. But that argument is wrong, too. This can happen, but does not
always happen. Many colonial wars between 1900 and 1914 did not follow that course.
And it would be simply ridiculous to declare, for instance, that after the present war, if it
ends in the utter exhaustion of all the belligerents, "there can be no" national, progress,
revolutionary wars "of any kind", wages, say, by China in alliance with India, Persia,
Siam, etc., against the Great Powers.
mistaken historically, and tantamount to European chauvinism in practice: we who
belong to nations that oppress hundreds of millions in Europe, Africa, Asia, etc., are
invited to tell the oppressed peoples that it is "impossible" for them to wage war against
"our" nations!
ignore shitty formatting and read Lenin.
People apologizing for a misunderstanding, realizing they have similar goals and reconciling, on an imageboard?!
Also assault rifles do have a use, namely killing people.
libtards btfo
...