Antifa rocks!

[Traitorfish]

Unlike the alt-right, of course.

I do think the significance of the alt-right has been exaggerated, but in that case it is because they've been actively courted, in some cases recruited, by the now-sitting President of the United States of America, even as individuals aligned (ideologically, if not always by self-identification) with the movement have carried out several high-profile acts of domestic terrorism. Even if some news sources have over-reacted to what is still a fringe movement, there is legitimate cause for concern. The same can't realistically be said of Antifa, which is in practice a scattered subculture of angry punk kids.

Oh, I know about Rwanda. It just goes to show that most people, like werewolves, can morph into murderous monsters very easily if given a little nudge.

You're talking as if Rwanda at the time of the genocide was a normal, peaceful, multicultural society, but that's really not the case. The Hutu-dominated military had ruled the country with an iron-fist for twenty years, and was in the process of a losing a civil war against Tutsi rebels. The "little nudge" you speak of was the assassination of the Hutu-supremacist dictator, the day before the genocide began. The United States, as bad as things are, isn't at anything like that stage of political degeneration.

 

[Patine]

which is in practice a scattered subculture of angry punk kids.

"The youth of our nation, full of energy, anger, frustration, and a desire to claim their place in the sun from a staid geriocracy are the keys to taking power, whether through the ballot box or by breaking the doors down,"
-Benito Mussolini

Angry kids are not to be underestimated if numbers become large enough, and strong leadership emerges to guide their anger - the fact of me quoting the mastermind ideologue behind Fascism in the first place entirely aside.

 

[Traitorfish]

"The youth of our nation, full of energy, anger, frustration, and a desire to claim their place in the sun from a staid geriocracy are the keys to taking power, whether through the ballot box or by breaking the doors down,"
-Benito Mussolini

Angry kids are not to be underestimated if numbers become large enough, and strong leadership emerges to guide their anger - the fact of me quoting the mastermind ideologue behind Fascism in the first place entirely aside.

Mussolini's "youth of our nation" were unemployed veterans, not punk kids. I don't think there's a ready analogy, here.

 

[Hrothbern]

Mussolini's "youth of our nation" were unemployed veterans, not punk kids. I don't think there's a ready analogy, here.

yeah
he knew that ofc
But it sounds great to say the "youth of our nation" with the connotation of a bright future
Every country was trying to proof that they believed in their youth, in their flower of their nation.
All the youth associations with sports (nicely in uniform dress ofc) all over Europe from left to right, nicely segregated ofc.
Mass activities of all kinds all over.

 

[Berzerker]

Yw. I take it you are now admitting you are dramatically expanding the definition of fascists so it fits the hyperbolic narrative that anti fascists are actually fascists? You are equating fascists with thugs?

I'm not dramatically expanding the definition, I'm describing the ideologically motivated suppression of speech as fascistic because thats what fascists do to critics. Do you have a better word I can use? There are people on your side of this debate who call all sorts of people fascists and they dont mean fans of Mussolini's economic theories. So why are you insisting on that definition for me? And no, fascists and thugs are not equal. They're examples of words with expanding definitions over time based on certain noteworthy traits.

I'm not sure how you can maintain both these assertions simultaneously. Either you care about what Antifa think, or you don't.

You referred to antifa as the red menace or something, your context was ideological. So I said I dont care about their ideology, just their tactics. How is that at odds with what I said about libertarians on their enemies list?

To zoom on this libertarians point, which libertarians, precisely, are Antifa supposedly targeting? Objectivist book clubs? Cannabis legalization activists Paul dynasty fundraisers? Or the sort who turn up to rallies organised by white supremacists, populated by white supremacists, in defence of white supremacist iconography?

Why does it matter? Free speech is free speech. In the other thread I linked 2 stories, neither involved a defense of white supremacist iconography. One was a guy holding a free speech is good sign and the other was a free speech meeting indoors, antifa attacked the security guards. They dont like free speech, let's zoom in on that.

After all, from one angle, the statue was installed and maintained are the public expense, on land bought and maintained at the public expense; from the other, the decision to remove the statue was taken by the body who were its legal and by all accounts rightful owners. From perspectives, the authentically libertarian position seems to be to support the removal of the statue, as a matter of principle. Any "libertarian" turning out in defence of the statue is taking a stand to override the rights of property owners in order to maintain the grasp of the state over public space- a distinctly un-libertarian position. Does it not therefore seem reasonable that the unbiased observer might become sceptical of the self-declared "libertarianism" of participants in the really?

From what I understand far more people oppose pulling the statues down and it was the mayor in Charlottesville who wanted to remove the statue. So who are the rightful owners? As for me, they can all go to the dump if they're on public land. The libertarians I've been talking about (my links) are free speech advocates, not defenders of a statue.

"Fascist", broadly used, has come to include people who are pedantic about the use of "less" versus "fewer". Appealing to popular usage is a piss-poor basis for declaring that "anti-fascists are the real fascists".

If antifa was merely pedantic about less versus fewer I'd agree, but we're talking about the violent suppression of speech. So, do you believe the violent suppression of speech is fascistic? If not, what word do you recommend? Anti-fascist?

 

[Patine]

I'm not dramatically expanding the definition, I'm describing the ideologically motivated suppression of speech as fascistic because thats what fascists do to critics. Do you have a better word I can use? There are people on your side of this debate who call all sorts of people fascists and they dont mean fans of Mussolini's economic theories. So why are you insisting on that definition for me? And no, fascists and thugs are not equal. They're examples of words with expanding definitions over time based on certain noteworthy traits.

The suppression of free speech is not specifically Fascistic by nature. Yes, Fascists do it, but so do Communists, Absolute Monarchists, Feudalists, Imperialists, Militarists, Theocrats of every religion, tin-pot despots, tribal societies, colonial authorities over governed indigenous peoples, and even despairingly successful movements in First World constitutional democracies, like the McCarthyist/HUAC Red Scare, Anti-Fascist-Promotion legislation in many European countries, Decommunization laws in certain post-Soviet, post-Warsaw Pact, post-Yugoslavian nations, certain aspects of the U.S. Patriot Act and various copycat "Anti-Terrorist" legislation in other First World nations, and even these questionable Anti-Hate Speech in my home nation of Canada. So no, the suppression of free speech is NOT Fascistic - it is a MUCH broader phenomenon that is highly transcendent of any single ideology, place on the political spectrum, form of government, or historical time period, and is to pigeon-hole it as specifically "Fascistic" is VERY dangerous and counter-productive, because it makes this very grave threat to civilization to seem as though it only has a very limited number and ideology of perpetrators - which couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[Mouthwash]

Comin' from a hodgepodge of lefitst militias and fighters, I'm obviously very biased, and the following will probably be little more than gibberish for some, but eh. Antifa is just some section of the centrist and leftist public drawing a line. "You want to be public? We will, too. You're not unopposed." Sure, bad optics exist and the disorganized, decentralized, and amateur nature of this nearly alien concept to the US will make them the new boogeyman for the right, just like BLM was a few years ago, but in a nation where the right-wing can call up tens-of-thousands of rabid, armed militias and their materiel, the US can handle this, and more, from the left. A society with only one armed wing, infiltrating all levels of society, is not a safe society for everyone else; and there's nothing wrong with mass mobilization, self-arming, and preparing for self-defense and keeping the playing field balanced more than just 'the left will be slaughtered if shooting starts everywhere outside of New England'.

Again, sure, that might just cause more of a reaction, but if the US is so truly right-wing that thirty years of rightist foaming-of-the-mouth can go unopposed but not leftist ones, then, IMO, that just means the left needs to play catchup a lot faster.

I don't agree with their tactics but I certainly sympathize with this point. The further right in the US is itching for a real fight and they seem convinced they have the the armaments to just impose their will on the rest of the nation. Just spend a while reading breitbart comments or any story that has been linked by the drudge report and you will see the internet warriors calling for blood. This does call for a counter point.

And it's coming past time for the left to have the same armament as the right. The right has proven they'll discard their values whenever the Don commands it. I have no doubts they'd obey his order to cut down the tall trees if he gave it.

when you can read about "the day of the rope", the upcoming "race war" and similiar things every freakin day on alt-right echochambers I'm actually glad that the left has some semblance of executive branch as well, otherwise these power fantasies, which have often ended in mass murder (see synagogue shooting and other incidents) can manifest much more easily. alt-right bashing is nice and fun, but there are genuinely people out there who are only waiting to draw their weapon, and that's scary as hell.



rwanda is kind of a difficult comparison, because the genocide was so unique and uniquely disgusting that nothing really compares. consider the fact that even freakin teachers, preachers, nurses and goddamn human right activists took part in the genocide, not passively but via machete. it's really hard to believe that human beings would be capable of such cruelty. I've written a paper on this issue and whenever I think about my source material I get the creeps. you're right thought that the signs are very similiar, and very telling..

Oh, I know about Rwanda. It just goes to show that most people, like werewolves, can morph into murderous monsters very easily if given a little nudge.

I know many conservatives, and though they can be nice in person I have little doubt many would either take up arms or watch others do so approvingly if a "tall trees" order went out. I'm sure many Rwandans were butchered by those who a week before had been neighbors, or the teachers of their children, or the nice shopkeepers who sold them groceries.

The right spends a lot more time and energy obsessing over statues erected to threaten the black population than they do denouncing torch-marchers and armed militia groups with openly racist and violent ideology. If that wasn't disgusting enough, half of their arguments in favor of racist monuments boils down to: But you're the real racist, as they leer and jeer at the other side and dare us to 'provoke' more violence. They have, after all, run over people and shot up churches in defense of racist statues but pin the blame for those things on the victims themselves.

I... are you guys serious? Do you not live in the same universe as I do?

I spend most of my time interacting with people from your side of the aisle, and I don't think I've ever seen a conservative as militant or hostile as you guys are on a regular basis. They accuse you of taking over society, foisting radical agendas upon it, and suppressing dissent because you actually are.

Here's an endorsement of mob violence from Soren Johnson, if that sparks some introspection.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I wasn't talking about conservatives, did you even read the post? I was specifically talking about alt-right echochambers. kinda tedious of the constant """misunderstandings""""

The suppression of free speech is not specifically Fascistic by nature. Yes, Fascists do it, but so do Communists, Absolute Monarchists, Feudalists, Imperialists, Militarists, Theocrats of every religion, tin-pot despots, tribal societies, colonial authorities over governed indigenous peoples, and even despairingly successful movements in First World constitutional democracies, like the McCarthyist/HUAC Red Scare, Anti-Fascist-Promotion legislation in many European countries, Decommunization laws in certain post-Soviet, post-Warsaw Pact, post-Yugoslavian nations, certain aspects of the U.S. Patriot Act and various copycat "Anti-Terrorist" legislation in other First World nations, and even these questionable Anti-Hate Speech in my home nation of Canada. So no, the suppression of free speech is NOT Fascistic - it is a MUCH broader phenomenon that is highly transcendent of any single ideology, place on the political spectrum, form of government, or historical time period, and is to pigeon-hole it as specifically "Fascistic" is VERY dangerous and counter-productive, because it makes this very grave threat to civilization to seem as though it only has a very limited number and ideology of perpetrators - which couldn't be further from the truth.

Too true. we had this same argument when Americans went out of their way to call Trump a nazi. Words have meaning. Fascism/fascist is actually a very specific wor and is NOT to be used interchangeably with authoritarian/oppressive/"rightist"/things I don't like.

 

[Mouthwash]

I wasn't talking about conservatives, did you even read the post? I was specifically talking about alt-right echochambers. kinda tedious of the constant """misunderstandings""""

Given that everyone else was suggesting that the alt-right are mainstream, I think it was a fair assumption to make. Phrossack simply referred to all Trump supporters.

 

[Patine]

I... are you guy serious? Do you not live in the same universe as I do?

I spend most of my time interacting with people from your side of the aisle, and I don't think I've ever seen a conservative as militant or hostile as you guys are on a regular basis. They accuse you of taking over society, foisting radical agendas upon it, and suppressing dissent because you actually are.

Here's an endorsement of mob violence from Soren Johnson, if that sparks some introspection.

Politically, I view myself as an Independent/Centrist/Third Way, etc. type (when I'm not criticizing the modern political spectrum and culture as a whole for being a broken, divisive, counter-productive, internally self-productive institution as a whole that should be cast aside and transcended for practical, adaptive, and viable governance based on context and need, and viewing executive and legislative officeholders using political ideological purity and loyalty alone blocking up and preventing needed legislation and reform as being tantamount to them committing treason and sedition against their own people and nations), I think I can make an outsider comment. Frankly, when I see debates between "left-wing" and "right-wing" aligned people on the matter of politics (or other topics, even, growingly, topics where political divisions should be most unwelcome), whether online, on television, or in person, it's like the image of those gangbanger fighting dog owners with their chain-leashed pitbulls snapping viciously and murderously at each other - and yes, I see both sides are constantly just as vicious, angry, militant, hostile, and insulting to each other. Sorry to burst your bubble of faux virtue, there.

 

[Estebonrober]

Politically, I view myself as an Independent/Centrist/Third Way, etc. type (when I'm not criticizing the modern political spectrum and culture as a whole for being a broken, divisive, counter-productive, internally self-productive institution as a whole that should be cast aside and transcended for practical, adaptive, and viable governance based on context and need, and viewing executive and legislative officeholders using political ideological purity and loyalty alone blocking up and preventing needed legislation and reform as being tantamount to them committing treason and sedition against their own people and nations), I think I can make an outsider comment. Frankly, when I see debates between "left-wing" and "right-wing" aligned people on the matter of politics (or other topics, even, growingly, topics where political divisions should be most unwelcome), whether online, on television, or in person, it's like the image of those gangbanger fighting dog owners with their chain-leashed pitbulls snapping viciously and murderously at each other - and yes, I see both sides are constantly just as vicious, angry, militant, hostile, and insulting to each other. Sorry to burst your bubble of faux virtue, there.

Yea as someone else who considers themselves outside of both bases I do not agree with this at all. This is all anecdotal but in my experience the call for violence is wholly lopsided in the current environment. Perusing around the internets you will find plenty of right wing internet warriors calling for a purge basically. I do not see this on the left hardly at all or if I do its usually in reaction to the idea of purging all libruls.

The amount of actual violence perpetrated by right wing extremists versus left in the last twenty years is clear statistically. This is not up for debate.

 

[Mouthwash]

I've no doubt there are some, but they haven't broken into the right-wing mainstream (whereas the entire left seems to be getting on board with it - hopefully it's just an effect of not holding the presidency, and isn't a permanent shift).

 

[Ajidica]

whereas the entire left seems to be getting on board with it

Wait what.
Not being particularly bothered when Nazi thugs get punched by anarchist thugs is pretty far from endorsing political violence.

 

[Mouthwash]

If the white supremacists (not 'Nazis') in question are behaving in an entirely non-threatening manner, then yes, it is a tacit acceptance of violence in response to opinions you don't like. From there, the new paradigm of leftist thought where all political opposition is assimilated into the structure of white/male/cis privilege makes it easy to rationalize also attacking people like Tucker Carlson or Jordan Peterson, since they are perceived as enablers.

Here are a few examples (about the recent fake Indian harassment story).

 

[Lexicus]

Here's an endorsement of mob violence from Soren Johnson, if that sparks some introspection.

Where is the call for mob violence exactly?

 

[Mouthwash]

goddamn human right activists took part

By the way, this doesn't surprise me much. Human rights activism is usually a cover for political activism, and when sectarianism enters politics it becomes a cover for it as well. We have human rights activists here who are happy to see Palestinians executed by the PA for not hating Israel enough.

Where is the call for mob violence exactly?

In the tweets. You have to click on the blue words to see them.

 

[Estebonrober]

I've no doubt there are some, but they haven't broken into the right-wing mainstream (whereas the entire left seems to be getting on board with it - hopefully it's just an effect of not holding the presidency, and isn't a permanent shift).

What? The NRA, Fox News, and talk radio are the mainstream for the right wing. They are littered with people in their comments sections calling for violence. They also all have pundits calling for “being prepared”. Which is code for be ready for the next civil war. It is definitely mainstream.

All the conservative posters here would love to project their violent tendencies onto the left but it’s not comparable. The fistfights and brawls antifa participated in just doesn’t compare to blowing away a church or driving cars through protesters. It’s not the same as conspiring to start a civil war, or calling for the extermination of all liberals.

Antifa is not mainstream.

 

[Cheetah]

Human rights activism is usually a cover for political activism

Human rights activism is political activism! And decent human beings consider it a good thing.

That you can point to certain individuals which aren't as kind as they should be, doesn't make human rights activism bad! Nor does it lend moral or ethical support to your authoritarian fantasies.

 

[Traitorfish]

You referred to antifa as the red menace or something, your context was ideological. So I said I dont care about their ideology, just their tactics. How is that at odds with what I said about libertarians on their enemies list?

If you care that Antifa identify libertarians as "enemies", you care what they think. If you don't care what you think, you couldn't care who they identify as an "enemy", only that they act upon that identification. You can't have both.

Why does it matter? Free speech is free speech.

You allege that Antifa target libertarians, and that this is proof of their wide-ranging hostility to liberal values. I contest that the "libertarians" they have run into conflict with are practically and for the most part ideologically indistinguishable from white supremacists, and their status as subjects of anti-fascist hostility is less "audible gasp" than "well, duh".

From what I understand far more people oppose pulling the statues down and it was the mayor in Charlottesville who wanted to remove the statue. So who are the rightful owners?

Do you have any polling data that indicates the population of Charlottesville, specifically, were opposed to removing the statue? They elected a council that arranged to first cover and then remove it. (Four Democrats and a progressive independent.) Statewide or nationwide opinion is not directly relevant to municipal policy, because the rest of the state and country don't live there, and don't pay for the statue's upkeep.

As for me, they can all go to the dump if they're on public land. The libertarians I've been talking about (my links) are free speech advocates, not defenders of a statue.

Why are these libertarians so narrowly concerned with the right of white supremacists to exercise free speech? They're attending white supremacists events, hosting white supremacist speakers, petition on behalf of white supremacists- do they extend a similar dispassionate advocacy to other similarly controversial groups? Radical feminists, Black Lives Matter, Antifa? If you're narrowly concerned with the free speech of white supremacists, then suspicion minds might begin to suspect ulterior motives.

If antifa was merely pedantic about less versus fewer I'd agree, but we're talking about the violent suppression of speech. So, do you believe the violent suppression of speech is fascistic? If not, what word do you recommend? Anti-fascist?

I do not believe that the violent suppression of speech is "fascistic", no. If I did, the list of fascists would include Qin Shi Huang, Elizabeth I and Tomás de Torquemada, to give only a few notorious examples. That would be stretching the definition of "fascism" well beyond any possibility usefulness.

 

[Imaus]

This is why, for ideologies at least, firm definitions to spring forth from is necessary.

As I was taught and understand it,

Fascism is a socio-economic ideology that denounced both the 'excesses' of Capitalism and the 'radicalism' of Socialism/Communism and formed after the First World War and lasted until the fall of the Estado Novo and the Spanish State in the 70s. It gathers all factors of society, rich or poor, corporate or not, religious or not* (See Clerical Fascism) and channels their energies and works to the greater State, which is aiming for the expansion of the state both internally and externally. Strains of militarism, authoritarianism, ethnicism, nationalism, and imperialism are woven into this system, though can stand on their own as well as other systems.

As it claims to gather the people of the nation together, address (or claims to address) the problems of inequality for a select people, it can woo over Socialists and Leftists, particularly of the Nationalist stock, while the eventual glorification of militarism, expansion, warfare, and self-sufficiency of the state gathers the Right-wing. Fascism itself was a contender for the 'third way'. A pure Leftist strand of Fascism has probably never succeeded or been put into practice, though the more Authoritarian Leftist States of the prior and current century take on some of its trappings. *(Juche, maybe?).

As Fascism crosses and unites many different aspects that can appear elsewhere, such as Authoritarianism, Jingoism, Militarism, Chauvinism, Ethnicism, Nationalism, Imperialism etal, the core element becomes crucial IMO: the rejection of Capitalism, or at least unbridled 'wasteful', 'self-serving' or 'globalist' Capitalism that the state cannot control and wield to feed its projects or war-machine, and the rejection of Communism as being 'too-far', 'too utopic', 'too internationalist' or some other form of disdain thereof. The gathering of the people of a state, or a select majority/special minority, is also crucial; but other systems can rely on that alone in tandem with either Capitalism or Communism/Socialist and is not a unique part of Fascism: Patriotism through Jingoism calls on the masses just as well.

By this definition, few now would be really Fascists, and Anti-fa becomes more of a general anti-far-rightwing group, but with the armed and hostile Right-wing in the US, and across the world, I'm still supportive of the Center and Left getting a backbone and organization for public rejection of far-right views and general self-defense.

Would the Right-wingers in here be more appeased if the Reichsbanner_Schwarz-Rot-Gold came back rather than Antifa, then? Either way, in times of widening political divisions and paramilitary armament, don't cry foul when every side and facet organizes and arms up. Sorry not sorry for not kneeling over when hard power becomes more and more of necessary in the political climate.

I digress here a bit but, I wouldn't be surprised if a new form of Fascism arises from Ultra-civic nationalism where the state is all and all for the state, uniting Left and Right, winning either in the US or somewhere else by the mid or late century. Fascism is relatively still new, and time makes people forget. Whether or not that new stand of Fascism leads mankind to undue ethnic wars/purges or simply forces all to give their all to maintaining a state remains to be seen.