"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary."
-Karl Marx, 'Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League'
March 1850
The American Party of Labor have recently, decisively and openly, called for the proletariat to surrender one of its most effective tools of resistance. Joining the calls of Bidenist politicians and "leftist" Social-Democrat intellectuals, they saw it fit to argue against Marx on the issue of gun rights, in a textbook example of maliciously disregarding dialectics (and basic cause-and-effect at that).
Benjamin Rizzo, Deputy National Chair of the APL, derided Communists who oppose "gun control", (or as Rizzo termed it, "sensible regulation of firearms"), as being "caught up in fantasies" while admitting firearms have "utility as a tool of revolutionary transformation". The bait here is trying to transform a question of principle to that of tactics, but I’ll bite, because it is a very poor bait.
1. Is gun ownership expedient?
Our end goal is world communism. How do we reach it? Revolutions, and the dictatorship of the proletariat. In the past, the forces we could muster were closer in quality to those of our enemies. In 1918, they had a handful of early tanks and planes, but the majority of the fighting was done by infantry and cavalry. Horses, bolt action rifles, and early machine guns. In 2023, it is a utopia to think we can match modern battle tanks, jets, high altitude bombers, drones, and professional equipment of modern armies (especially the overfunded US army). The American proletariat has the advantage of having access to modern rifles, machine guns, powerful equipment usually monopolised by the armed forces of the bourgeoisie.
Either we intend to defeat the bourgeoisie through a ballot, in which case we are pacifist traitors, or we intend to defeat the bourgeoisie through firearms found in a museum, in which case we are adventurist traitors, and will send the most revolutionary workers to their deaths, and dig the grave of the revolution with our own incompetent hands.
Or, we implore the oppressed to make use of this advantage to the utmost degree, in which case we adopt Lenin’s slogan, "arming of the proletariat to defeat, expropriate and disarm the bourgeoisie.". We make use of these years to mold the proletariat into a force capable of shattering its chains, of crushing its enemy totally. 1910, 1911, 1912, ect. existed for 1917. Lenin put it very simply:
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 and the overthrow of the power of the ruling class.
-Lenin, https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/01.htm
Furthermore, not even the ‘possibilist’ traitor will be able to deny this expediency, because 47% of Americans support keeping gun rights as they are, or relaxing them further, as of 2021.
But according to Rizzo, planning ever so slightly ahead is a fantasy. What’s his excuse?
2. Yet Another Seance of Kautsky
Rizzo’s justification is "the working class is using these firearms to kill each other and themselves in appalling numbers rather than their exploiters and oppressors in the capitalist class". Before we rebuke his "data", which is presented either ignorantly or dishonestly, lets dwell on theory briefly.
The murder of proletarians with the use of firearms is a consequence of capitalism, much like starvation, drug abuse, and police brutality. Capitalism as a system kills far more people than any singular aspect of it.
From a scientific standpoint, the only way to save the majority of those lives, is the abolition of the system, and the establishment of a rational and humane system - a socialist system.
Why then, has U.S. society not become socialist?
The reason is that the economic resources, and hence political power (the state, media, educational institutions, etc.), are forcefully held by a minority class, to whom the existence of the aforementioned issues is not only unproblematic, but beneficial.
This force is comprised of people carrying guns, driving armored vehicles, controlling surveillance systems, etc.
We, as workers of the world, have much more limited weaponry. At most, we have our labor, which we can withhold. However, as history proves, we will be forced to work using the threat of starvation, homelessness, or by the armed branches of the state. Usually our only way out is arming ourselves in secret, but this is a very arduous task.
By contrast, the workers of the United States are in a very unique position, they have direct and legal access to modern small arms. Even though this is not very much compared to the forces wielded by the ruling enemy class, it is a massive asset.
The APL, in an ugly display of incompetence, advocate for the limitation, and, by the dialectical nature of state power, the eventual abolition of this massive asset.
The Christian socialists had exactly the same line of thinking to another bloody tragedy, the war of 1914-1918. They also demanded "disarmament", to ‘mitigate’ the damage of firearms instead of solving the root cause. Lenin responded thusly:
If the present war arouses 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. And if this most reactionary of all wars is now preparing for that society an end in 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. [...] That argument takes account of objective development and, with the necessary changes, applies also to the present militarisation of the population. Today the imperialist bourgeoisie militarises the youth as well as the adults; tomorrow it may begin militarising the women. Our attitude should be: All the better! Full speed ahead! For the faster we move, the nearer shall we be to the armed uprising against capitalism. How can Social-Democrats give way to fear of the militarisation of the youth, etc., if they have not forgotten the example of the Paris Commune? This is not a “lifeless theory” or a dream. It is a fact. And it would be a sorry state of affairs indeed if, all the economic and political facts notwithstanding, Social-Democrats began to doubt that the imperialist era and imperialist wars must inevitably bring about a repetition of such facts.
-Lenin, https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/01.htm
Lenin could not have been more obvious (but being the incredible author he was, he found a way to pull it off. I suggest reading the entire article he wrote) in saying ‘we support arming workers’. Despite the bloodshed, we can save lives by doing so, because capitalism will be overthrown quicker, less blood will be spilled overall.
As promised, let’s address Rizzo’s "data":
According to statistics from the federal Centers for Disease Control, there were around 49,000 deaths from firearms in the U.S. in 2021. This is greater than the nearly 43,000 deaths from motor vehicle crashes that year, although it is eclipsed by the more than 110,000 deaths from opioid overdoses. These gun deaths in 2021 include about 26,000 suicides and 21,000 murders, with the other approximately 1,500 deaths attributed to accidents, “undetermined circumstances,” and killings by law enforcement (557). According to the Washington Post, the actual number of people killed by law enforcement that year could be almost double the number reported since not all law enforcement agencies report killings to the FBI.
-Rizzo, On sensible regulation of firearms
The figure of "21,000 murders" is presented very dishonestly. Most people who commit murder with firearms have a criminal record. One estimate placed it at over 87.5% of gun murderers having either a criminal record (75%), or not having one due to being juveniles ("The reason over half of those 25% of murderers don't have adult records is that they are juveniles"). The license system does not matter, as only 11% of crime guns were obtained from Federal firearm licensees. In 89% of cases, they "changed hands at least once" before recovery as crime guns.
As horrible as 2,200 murders a year are, we will soon show how many lives guns save. 2,200 gun murders by people who aren’t barred from having a firearm in the first place due to a criminal record. But we can go even further than this. Rizzo, shameless populist he is, targets specifically "assault weapons" ("banning sales of weapons — such as assault weapons"). But as mentioned above, assault rifles and automatic weapons are what we must have to match our class enemies, at least in the field of small arms. When it comes to gun crimes, however, they count for approximately 3% of firearm murders. Handguns, which are responsible for 59%, are not mentioned by Rizzo. It shows how extensively they conduct their research before stabbing the proletariat in its back. Dear reader, what kind of "revolutionary party" falls to Democrat scare mongering, and actively advocates disarming itself as a result? a sensible party would have demanded its followers arm themselves with urgency.
The figure of ‘suicides’ is cited just as dishonestly. Only the worst of opportunists would go so low as to call themselves a "Marxist" while covering up the crimes of capitalism. Instead of blaming poverty, inequality, systemic betrayal, the failings of medical and psychiatric healthcare, the legality of fascist ideology, and real explanations for suicide and mass shootings, the means, the firearms, are blamed instead. But despite the fact gun ownership is abnormally high in the US, suicide rates are not. In fact, Japan and Korea are two states with extremely tight gun regulation, but both have higher suicide rates (Korea, especially so). By focusing the blame on guns, they provide a smokescreen for the bourgeoisie and capitalism, who are the root cause of this misery.
But here’s the kicker: Compared to these figures, widespread gun ownership helps save lives. In the 1990s, There were around 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year, over 1% of people in the US. Victims used firearms defensively 3.6 times as often as used by criminals offensively. (Note that use =/= firing, let alone wounding or killing. Defensive Gun Usage statistics exclude Military, Police or Security Guards).
According to G. Kleck (see the heading "Crimes Involving Defensive Gun Use), 1997, defensive gun uses were connected to:
-34%: Burglaries
-20%: Robberies
-6%: Other theft
-8%: Rape / S.A.
-30%: Nonsexual assault
-15%: Trespassing (but only 3.7% were exclusively trespassing, meaning the rest involved another crime)
-10% Other
Adding up to over 100% as some cases involved multiple crimes. Yet I find this insufficient, I want some number - how many lives do firearms save in the US? The same books cites:
400,000 of which [R.S.: Defensive Gun Uses] were claimed by the defenders to have certainly or almost certainly saved a life
(Under the heading "Victim Resistance and Fatal Injury")
As we can see, even if we take Rizzo’s bogus at face value, 49k deaths are compared to 400k lives. Even right now, in the imperialist, poverty stricken, warmongering, unjust US, arming workers saves workers.
I will end this chapter with the following:
This would include limiting sales of firearms to those 21 years old and up so they have the opportunity to gain the maturity needed for responsible ownership of firearms;
-Rizzo, On sensible regulation of firearms
But Lenin contends:
Today the imperialist bourgeoisie militarises the youth as well as the adults; tomorrow it may begin militarising the women. Our attitude should be: All the better! Full speed ahead! For the faster we move, the nearer shall we be to the armed uprising against capitalism. How can Social-Democrats give way to fear of the militarisation of the youth, etc., if they have not forgotten the example of the Pasis Commune?
-Lenin, On the ‘Disarmament’ Slogan
3. Where Will This Policy Lead?
By this question, I do not mean that Rizzo’s logic (rather, lack thereof) will lead us to declaring a crusade against mountains, due to the strong correlation of living at an elevation above 2000ft (for nonamericans like me, that’s around 610 meters) and suicide, although I won’t put it beyond the APL to do so.
Will Rizzo’s promises, "sensible regulation of firearms that would make society safer, thus would be in the best interests of the working class, and that could reduce the chances of attacks by fascists, such as we saw in Kenosha in 2020.", actually materialise?
Right from the getgo, let us be Marxists and ask – a safe society, but for whom? Definitely not for workers stricken with poverty, who cannot defend themselves after having this strong tool taken away, deprived of a powerful edge for changing their terrible circumstances. What talk of "safety" is there without real democracy, without security for work, for food, for homes? Can a Marxist truly talk about "safety" under the brutal dictatorship of a class with diametrically opposed interest to ours?
But even if we ignore this eyesore, how can you be treacherous enough to claim this will "reduce the chances of attacks by fascists"? These fascists have the backing of the ruling class. Those who make the laws and ‘sensible regulations’, those who hold the collar of the pigs-in-blue who actually enforce it.
Historically speaking, it can only do the opposite and help fascists arm, although no doubt force us to disarm. A country with an incredibly strict gun regulation was the Weimar republic. In fact, until 1928, all guns had to be surrendered to the state. The S.A. still armed themselves enough to attempt a coup.
Banning firearms will "force" fascists to join into organisations like the S.A. to keep their firearms. It will compel them to organise better, and radicalise them further into action. Let us not forget the white terror was stopped due to red firearms. The fascists will arm themselves regardless of what we do – but if we arm ourselves too, we can keep each other safe.
Tell me, what will stop the republicans from expanding DeSantis’s pet project, a paramilitary that answers to him, and is allowed to carry guns?
Lawmakers already approved "funding to help the State Guard triple in size and gave some members the right to carry firearms and make arrest."[sic]
Any ‘sensible regulation’ enforced and dictated by our class enemy means we will be discriminated against in its enforcement. This is one reason we say "under no pretext". For example, these regulations might include ‘being arrested’, incentivising cops (which are also class enemies and, as you no doubt know, hate us with a passion) to arrest more protestors, depriving them of the ability to arm in the future.
All Rizzo and his fantasies will achieve is the strangulation of trends like this one or this one, of minorities in danger arming themselves to defend themselves against fascists, injustice, and one day exploitation at its core.
Let it be known I rescind any and all endorsements I ever gave to the APL. The moment they attempted to convince the workers to dig their own grave, they left behind any shred of revolutionary dignity they ever had. We will not abandon our duty to arm, armament is duty.
The Communist stance on the issue is clear. We oppose any kind of regulation of firearms.
