Charlie Kirk is an influential right-wing figure in the United States, a supporter of Trump and Vance. Recently, he was shot and killed on the spot during a public event at a university in Utah. What does this person’s death signify? Welcome comrades to actively share your opinions and discuss!
7 Likes
The intensification of the internal struggle between the monopolistic bourgeoisie represented by the Democratic Party and that represented by the Republican Party
This person supports gun rights, shouting slogans like swearing to uphold the Second Amendment (now he has gotten what he wished for), opposes abortion, opposes support for Ukraine (even if the imperialist support from the US is fake), opposes gender equality, and supports racist speech. It is obvious that he is a bourgeois right-wing fascist. In fact, while he was still alive, many people already called him the Republican with the most potential to become president in the future. So, personally, I feel there are two possibilities regarding his assassination. One is that it was organized and planned by the Democratic Party; the other is that it was carried out by petty-bourgeois anarchists opposing such fascist bandits. But no matter what, the occurrence of such an event only proves that the bourgeois formal democratic system is becoming increasingly ineffective. Relying on assassination can only eliminate individuals representing certain class interests but cannot eliminate the economic foundation on which these ideas exist. Now, US imperialism, like Chinese imperialism, is fraught with internal crises and increasingly intense class contradictions, preparing to bring bayonets back into play, digging fascist rubbish out of the grave and putting it on the table. The antics and eventual death of someone like Charlie Kirk signify the accumulation of fascist forces (after his death, the MAGA groups in the US, Little Pinks, and fascists all “celebrated,” widely sharing images and texts like “Hitler was right”). In the near future, to shift the economic crisis, cover up class contradictions, and launch foreign wars, the fascist forces in the US may completely tear off their “democratic” disguise and, like the revisionist Chinese imperialists, fight bare-chested, sending the people to the battlefield of the US-China rivalry.
5 Likes
The petty bourgeoisie influenced by bourgeois ideology, the proletarian MAGA, and the little pinks will eventually understand who truly stabbed them in the back.
Where are the little pinks among the proletariat? Are there ordinary workers in factories shouting “Long live Xi Jinping”? The little pinks are all petty-bourgeois ultra-right fascists who have benefited from the Nazis. They spend their days loudly boasting about this or that massacre. In the end, they become lackeys of the revisionists and are sent to the front lines as cannon fodder, only to be eliminated by the masses.
1 Like
What is amusing is that Charlie Kirk repeatedly made anti-people remarks before his death, saying that few Americans die from gun violence, that those who die from gun violence deserve it, that school shootings are carried out by LGBT individuals (not discussing the reactionary nature of LGBT here), and that gun crimes are mainly caused by black gang violence. His last words before death were even “gang violence….” (a pun in English for gun violence), intending to engage in sophistry. Unfortunately, he never got to finish that sentence.
Kirk's tweet. Meaning: "Guns save lives."His opponents might add the second half: "but not yours." (but not your life)
2 Likes
Can only say a good death
4 Likes
The Reactionary Nature of LGBT?
Yes. LGBT is reactionary. However, the length required to answer this question may be quite long. If you have similar doubts, it is recommended that you post a thread yourself to ask.
But it seems that the Communist Party of the Philippines supports LGBT.
The Communist Party of the Philippines is now influenced by a revisionist line, so in the end, it not only does not oppose this kind of bourgeois ideology but even promotes it. However, no matter what, I still suggest you start a separate thread to ask questions, considering that many people have unclear understanding of LGBT, and this issue also has great significance for open discussion.
5 Likes
Actually, I don’t quite understand why the assassination was organized by the Democratic Party. Aren’t the interests between the Democratic and Republican parties increasingly forced to converge? I haven’t been following current affairs much recently, so I hope for an explanation.
Moreover, is the right to bear arms beneficial or harmful to the proletariat? Originally, socialist China did not have gun control as strict as today’s Nazi regime. After the fascist government came to power, they immediately began confiscating the militia’s firearms. I am not very clear about the situation in the United States. Also, many “little pinks” often loudly proclaim “Gunfight America, Freedom Every Day” to express their disdain and contempt for American citizens’ right to bear arms.
1 Like
It still needs to be analyzed from the perspective of class. There is no abstract harmfulness or benefit. For example, in the United States, buying a gun requires a gun permit, which the proletariat cannot afford. Those who actually possess and play with guns are either petty-bourgeois right-wingers or some gangsters and criminal organizations. Of course, there are also ordinary people who genuinely buy a gun to keep at home for self-defense; specific issues need specific analysis. Moreover, just talking about gun ownership without discussing the balance of class forces is inappropriate. For instance, in the United States, if the masses want to rise up against the capitalist system, whether they have guns or not actually does not make much difference. Gun control among civilians in the U.S. is very strict: no short barrels, no fully automatic weapons, magazine capacity limits, stock restrictions… It is also impossible to expect to defeat the bourgeois state machinery solely with guns.
8 Likes
It’s just speculation, not necessarily the case. Personally, I feel it leans towards anarchist behavior.
1 Like
That would really be bad.
At first glance, it seemed that the gunman Taylor Robinson might have been influenced by anarchism, and current reports all describe this person as a “leftist anti-fascist.” For example, BBC:
Authorities stated that the inscriptions on the bullets showed that Robinson was heavily influenced by internet culture, including the anti-fascist (Antifa) movement.
One unshot shell casing was inscribed with “Hey, fascist! Come at me!” and three downward arrows — a common symbol used by anti-fascist movements.
Another shell casing was inscribed with lyrics from the song “Bella Ciao.” This song was dedicated to Italian partisans fighting against Nazi Germany during World War II.
Yet another unshot shell casing was inscribed with “If you’re reading this, you’re gay, lmao,” which also originates from internet meme culture, where “lmao” is an abbreviation for “laugh my ass off.”
But in reality, all the inscriptions on the bullets are as follows:
The fired bullet: “Noticed the bulge, OwO what’s this?”
(This phrase comes from a reaction meme in reactionary porn circles, depicting two disheveled middle-aged men flirting with cutesy language and emoticons, one of whom notices the other’s male physiological response. It is a highly reactionary and vulgar joke about sex.)
The unfired bullets:
- “Hey fascist! Catch!
”
(This mimics the operation of summoning a missile in a fascist game called “Hell Diver.”) - “O Bella Ciao, Bella Ciao, Bella Ciao Ciao Ciao”
“Ah, goodbye, my friend, ah, goodbye, my friend, goodbye, see you again, see you again, see you again.” - “If you read this, you are gay lmao”
“Anyone reading this is gay, lol.”
Furthermore, based on subsequent uncovered information, this person is likely a far-right extremist, with the assassination being an internal conflict among right-wing factions. His morals are extremely corrupt. His family members are all Republicans, and he has joined a notorious far-right fascist group called “Groyper,” which is a fan club of fascist host Nick Fuentes.
These people promote Hitler, strongly oppose Jews and LGBT individuals, and advocate for white supremacy. The inscriptions Taylor Robinson made are popular phrases within this fascist group, and they indeed believe Charlie Kirk is not far enough to the right because he does not oppose Jews. This group even hopes that the “Center-Right” can come and purge America, helping to establish a fascist regime in the U.S.
Mainstream media hurriedly labels this incident as the work of “leftist” anarchists “anti-fascists,” which is very insidious, aiming to create a second “Haystack Factory” incident. However, the truth is that this is merely an internal feud among fascists.
10 Likes
Why is it said that anarchists oppose “this fascist bandit path” rather than oppose fascism?
After careful consideration, I realize that my previous statement was incorrect; it disregarded class and should not have been made. Because in a class society, every individual lives within a certain class position, and all kinds of ideas inevitably bear the imprint of class. There is no such thing as an abstract anarchist in the world. From the perspective of class, anarchists are either petty bourgeois or bankrupt petty bourgeois, or some disadvantaged bourgeois. When they talk about being “generally” anti-social or anti-government, it is simply because they themselves are not the rulers; they are not the ruling force of society, nor members of the government, and therefore they oppose it. Some “moderate” petty bourgeois anarchists fantasize about returning to idyllic pastoral days, while the rest, Bakunin-style anarchists, seek to gain profits through terrorism such as assassination and individual uprisings. Like all bourgeois speculators, they are eager to climb to the throne of rulers through various conspiratorial means.
Politically, the class characteristics of anarchists * (of course, this does not exclude the possibility of anarchists who reform, since people have subjective initiative. But this will not be discussed here) * determine that they will not fundamentally oppose fascist forces based on class interests; they may even collaborate with fascists, become part of fascism, or be bought off by the police to become the vanguard of sabotaging movements. The Haymarket affair in Chicago, USA, vividly exposed the reactionary nature of anarchists * (in this incident, anarchists bought off by the US government threw bombs into the crowd, killing workers and some police officers, ultimately giving the US government an excuse to launch large-scale armed conflict and brutally massacre the working masses) *. It is precisely because anarchism is nothing more than bourgeois individualism in disguise that, fundamentally, it shares the same root as fascism—because fascism is just capitalism developed to an extreme, capitalism stripped of its democratic facade. Therefore, at the root, there is no life-or-death struggle between fascism and anarchism; as bourgeois ideologies, they have only one true common enemy—socialism.
This is indeed the case. According to later findings, the person who assassinated Charlie Kirk was also a supporter of fascism. He killed Kirk using the classic anarchist assassination method, but this was merely due to disagreement with some of Kirk’s “right-wing policies,” not because of any deep-seated class hatred.
Thus, after analyzing the class nature of anarchists, we can conclude: anarchists may oppose some fascists for personal interests * (because fascism, as an extreme form of capitalism, can also brutally encroach on the personal interests of petty bourgeois and those bourgeois who do not hold power) *, just as they oppose those who hinder their profit-making for personal gain. But in any case, they will never oppose fascism from a class standpoint, let alone become “anti-fascists.” On the contrary, the vast majority of them will, from a class standpoint, become bona fide “anti-socialists.”
6 Likes
Acabo de ver que Luanyun abrió un nuevo hilo
2 Likes