guns don't prevent tyranny or protect freedom: https://thinkprogress.org/civilian-guns-do-not-prevent-tyranny-f831c6aa871c/
revolutions are actually more likely in states with lower firearm ownership: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/owning-guns-doesnt-preserve-freedom/275287/

The fascists don't care that you have guns
How about less LARPing and more real political strategy https://twitter.com/roun_sa_ville/status/1306068151487131655

for economic policy, middle class (50th income percentile) public opinion + party support are the only significant predictors of policy adoption: http://matthewg.org/Gilens-Parties4.pdf

political advocacy works and people underestimate popular sentiments effects on policy

violent resistance have become less successful over time; nonviolent resistance have become more successful: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/ https://b-ok.org/book/3656840/d89e0d https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/418850379518705675/713784950964355132/ChenowethAndStephan2011.pdf

violent revolution is also logistically unfeasible in todays age especially in NATO nations.

violent revolutions work better against weaker states and worse against stronger states: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/ https://b-ok.org/book/3656840/d89e0d https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/418850379518705675/713784950964355132/ChenowethAndStephan2011.pdf

Thinking a revolution could be successful in fully developed modern nations is dangerous adventurism

nonviolent mass resistance are more successful in every outcome category: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/ https://b-ok.org/book/3656840/d89e0d https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/418850379518705675/713784950964355132/ChenowethAndStephan2011.pdf

Civil resistance and building political power are empirically backed methods of effective change

nonviolent regime change movements were much likely to result in democracy after the movement ended: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/ https://b-ok.org/book/3656840/d89e0d https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/418850379518705675/713784950964355132/ChenowethAndStephan2011.pdf

Even if a violent revolution was successful, you're more likely to end up with autocracy instead

relative to violent mass movements, nonviolent mass movements are more likely to succeed (55% to 25%, 2.2x), more likely to partially succeed (25% vs 12.5%, 2x), and less likely to fail (20% vs 60%, .33x): https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/ https://b-ok.org/book/3656840/d89e0d https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/418850379518705675/713784950964355132/ChenowethAndStephan2011.pdf

movement success is positively predicted by nonviolence and number of participants, negatively predicted by population size and violent repression, and insignificantly predicted by polity score (autocracy-democracy) and target capabilities (military strength):

Leftists should seek to build large mostly non violent movements of change instead of alienating a population averse to violence and becoming more averse to firearms. Instead of engaging in dangerous adventurism, do something productive.

Gun control works and would also disarm fascists and other methods of democratizing society that can come through legislation can declaw a lot of the states power. Direct action and engaging in electoralism creates the power to get legislation passed.

and violent revolutions in the developed world would certainly not be a traditional civil war, but largely ineffective guerrilla warfare, it would alienate people from the movement and it would eventually just disappear.

relative to civil wars led by nonterrorist rebel groups, terrorist rebel groups were 15x less likely to achieve victory and 2x less likely to reach an agreement with the government: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/do-terrorists-win-rebels-use-of-terrorism-and-civil-war-outcomes/4729B2B926904616190DC38DB3240C8F https://sci-hub.tw/10.1017/S0020818315000089

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/do-terrorists-win-rebels-use-of-terrorism-and-civil-war-outcomes/4729B2B926904616190DC38DB3240C8F https://sci-hub.tw/10.1017/S0020818315000089

Revolution in the first world is cringe and logistically impossible. Listen to Marx and just be a reformist in American/other developed countries with military alliances, which is way more likely to succeed in bringing about Socialism then a revolution.

Those who shit on electoralism don't actually have any realistic goals or strategies and just quote Lenin's assertions from 1917 and run on pure intuition and ideology.

Most western revolutionaries probably don't even read up on military strategy or infrastructure logistics anyway, its a LARP.

Have the MLs found out how to blow a warthog out of the sky yet?

Also they will say revolution is the only way to stop climate change, yet they can't actually articulate how a global revolution could happen within the next 25 years that would succeed quickly and then rebuild to shift into fixing the issue. Either blackpilled or LARPing

https://twitter.com/RedCharlotte_/status/1306064070500593664?s=20

this but replace GP with any leftist who won't vote Biden