Antifa rocks!

[Estebonrober]

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.

I think something new might be coming. I’m hoping here in the US it only involves an amendment or three and no actual violence. I have my doubts as this continues. It’s very likely we see Trump formally impeached this year for one reason or another and that is going to stock the fires quite a bit. I’m not sure this loud 35% can go down without actually fighting over it. As the 3%ers love to point out, you don’t need a lot of people willing to get violent.

 

[Dachs]

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.

I disagree with this; the concept of an anti-individualistic ur-national will expressed through a single leader is wholly incompatible with other forms of nationalism.

 

[Berzerker]

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.

People dont accuse those of violently suppressing free speech of being Monarchists or Feudalists. Nobody says attacking protesters is communistic or theocratic. What term has become synonymous with that behavior? Fascism. But calling the violent suppression of free speech fascistic is dangerous because it limits the number of perpetrators? How does it do that? Sure looks like you're the one narrowing down the number of fascists. Antifa has made the news by attacking 'fascists', so do you have a problem with Antifa calling the people they attack fascists? I consider McCarthy a fascist, but given this debate I wouldn't be surprised to see his reputation make a temporary comeback with the left. It was the left who was calling him a fascist when I grew up and I didn't know they had stopped.

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.

The only time I see leftists make a fuss about the definition of fascism is when people on the left are being accused of fascistic behavior.

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.

I said I dont care about their ideology in response to you referring to them as the red menace, ie I dont care if they're red.

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".

Some libertarians met in a hall for a free speech seminar, antifa invaded and attacked people. So now you're accusing the victims of being white supremacists. Does that include the security guards? Is free speech indistinguishable from white supremacy? If a libertarian showed up at a white supremacy rally being attacked by Antifa with a free speech sign, would you accuse them of defending the ideology of white supremacy or free speech? Whats that famous saying, I dont agree with what you say but I'll defend your right to say it. Antifa would be attacking them too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall

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.

I cant find one specific to Charlottesville which is strange in itself, the polls I see are national, statewide (Virginia), or Richmond. I suspect the populations where the statues are sitting are even more supportive. None of the polls I saw on google show more people want the statues removed. Does the council own the town or the people who live there? If the council was acting against the will of the people, who are the rightful owners?

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.

Libertarians were BLM before BLM came into existence. Back when the Democrats (and many in the black caucus) and Republicans were building the mass incarceration state it was the libertarians condemning their drug war - and abortion restrictions. Why would libertarians endorse Antifa's attacks on other people? And libertarians aren't narrowly concerned, they've been on the front lines in the free speech war long before the 'anti-fascists' showed up to save us from the fascists. If Antifa's free speech was under attack by the fascists the libertarians would be defending Antifa. So they go to where the sounds of the battle are and defend the right to free speech regardless of ideology. I thank them for their sacrifices, what are you doing?

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.

If those people were around today they'd make my list of fascists. So what word do you suggest we use for the violent suppression of free speech?

 

[Patine]

People dont accuse those of violently suppressing free speech of being Monarchists or Feudalists. Nobody says attacking protesters is communistic or theocratic. What term has become synonymous with that behavior? Fascism. But calling the violent suppression of free speech fascistic is dangerous because it limits the number of perpetrators? How does it do that? Sure looks like you're the one narrowing down the number of fascists. Antifa has made the news by attacking 'fascists', so do you have a problem with Antifa calling the people they attack fascists? I consider McCarthy a fascist, but given this debate I wouldn't be surprised to see his reputation make a temporary comeback with the left. It was the left who was calling him a fascist when I grew up and I didn't know they had stopped.

Excoriating and persecuting people for supposedly not accepting the "full meaning of word" because of the definition you, a bunch of hooligans, thugs, and vandals playing dress-up as 1930's Spanish and Italian Anarchists, and a highly uninformed, uneducated, overly-simplifying, and thoughtless zeitgeist erroneously define it is NOT a way to look intelligent or gain any respect or credence on debate or rhetoric. I'm just letting you know here.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The DHS? You mean the American Gestapo or KGB? Good source of such classifications. Top notch reference. :S

Department of Homeland Security. If you want to reject government organizations as a source, I'd be interested if you can find more reliable data.

Video evidence that I've seen suggests DHS isn't over-reaching.

 

[Kyriakos]

Just cause x proclaims it is anti-fascist, does not mean it is so. Eg a few days ago the pitiful gov here ordered the police to fire tear gass at the crowd, and claimed it did so cause the poor policemen were threatened.
It would just cause laughter, if it wasnt so dictatorial.

 

[Patine]

Department of Homeland Security. If you want to reject government organizations as a source, I'd be interested if you can find more reliable data.

Video evidence that I've seen suggests DHS isn't over-reaching.

How often do you enter the United States from without (assuming ideal circumstances, and that the government is doing their job and passing a budget and paying their employees, and abdicating their oaths of office and committing treason and sedition against their own people by shutting down the government almost every fiscal year lately on petty points of principle, many not even very with the general population, but not having the conviction to cut the funding to all their taxpayer-funded perks and privileges to show true sacrifice for their "cause" - but even under standard circumstances) with legitimate business and a legal passport and visa and doing nothing criminal? I swear, the reception is just as unfriendly and over reaching as entering the old East Bloc from outside in the day. Also, the DHS is responsible for coordination of many aspects of blatantly unconstitutional tool of tyranny passed manipulatively in a time and atmosphere and fear that is the (un)Patriot that is antagonistic to, and makes enemies of, their own population, like PRISM, warrantless taps and searches for, and observations of "terrorists" (an ill-defined, easily-abused, and highly-politicized word that should never have existed in a legal sense), and all manners of other duties above the law, unaccountable to the people, and criminal by the supreme law of the U.S. (the Constitution), mandated by the (un)Patriot Act, most of which they are not required to give running reports on to common population. Please tell me how that's not a secret police?

 

[aelf]

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.

Talk about faux virtue.

And this is the other side of the "there are good people on both sides" moral equivalence coin that an increasing number of people find objectionable.

 

[Patine]

Talk about faux virtue.

And this is the other side of the "there are good people on both sides" moral equivalence coin that an increasing number of people find objectionable.

So calling out both sides for their contributions to the problem is "faux virtue?" Where does the "virtue and honestly" lay. I'm fully expecting an insulting-to-the intelligence tirade where one side is the bad guy and the other is the victim, and anyone who says otherwise is a <blank ideological catchphrase insult>, of the kind of tripe I hear constantly, all over the place from - you guessed it - both sides of the equation. I'm hoping I'm wrong about the answer I anticipate, and that I'll be pleasantly surprised (and it won't be even stupider and more ridiculous).

 

[schlaufuchs]

So calling out both sides for their contributions to the problem is "faux virtue?" Where does the "virtue and honestly" lay. I'm fully expecting an insulting-to-the intelligence tirade where one side is the bad guy and the other is the victim, and anyone who says otherwise is a <blank ideological catchphrase insult>, of the kind of tripe I hear constantly, all over the place from - you guessed it - both sides of the equation. I'm hoping I'm wrong about the answer I anticipate, and that I'll be pleasantly surprised (and it won't be even stupider and more ridiculous).

 

[Patine]

I'm not watching an annoying homemade video by some basement revolutionary or philosopher. One of the things I detest most about the current Internet Age is people linking videos as responses and expecting the other to sit through it. I ONLY watch YouTube for official music videos and, occasionally, old amusing television commercials from my youth in the '80's I have fond memories of. If it isn't in a text article, it isn't worth my time. I'm sorry, but my stance across the board - it's not just you or this unwatched video.

 

[Lexicus]

And this is the other side of the "there are good people on both sides" moral equivalence coin that an increasing number of people find objectionable.

If history is any guide, the equivocating doesn't stop even after two ruined continents and lots of death camps.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

How often do you enter the United States from without (assuming ideal circumstances, and that the government is doing their job and passing a budget and paying their employees, and abdicating their oaths of office and committing treason and sedition against their own people by shutting down the government almost every fiscal year lately on petty points of principle, many not even very with the general population, but not having the conviction to cut the funding to all their taxpayer-funded perks and privileges to show true sacrifice for their "cause" - but even under standard circumstances) with legitimate business and a legal passport and visa and doing nothing criminal? I swear, the reception is just as unfriendly and over reaching as entering the old East Bloc from outside in the day. Also, the DHS is responsible for coordination of many aspects of blatantly unconstitutional tool of tyranny passed manipulatively in a time and atmosphere and fear that is the (un)Patriot that is antagonistic to, and makes enemies of, their own population, like PRISM, warrantless taps and searches for, and observations of "terrorists" (an ill-defined, easily-abused, and highly-politicized word that should never have existed in a legal sense), and all manners of other duties above the law, unaccountable to the people, and criminal by the supreme law of the U.S. (the Constitution), mandated by the (un)Patriot Act, most of which they are not required to give running reports on to common population. Please tell me how that's not a secret police?

Still not seeing more reliable data, or how known actions in question don't constitute domestic terror.

 

[Patine]

Still not seeing more reliable data, or how known actions in question don't constitute domestic terror.

Don't you understand the fundamental flaw of having a legal term called "terrorist," that can be applied by law-enforcement, often arbitrarily and with very flimsy and ill-defined limits on paper, that practically removes all meaningful rights of the suspect, including Miranda rights, access to a lawyer, contact to anyone outside custody, and allows secret trials unavailable to the public, transport to secret facilities to have "enhanced interrogation," and gives a VERY free hand in sentencing not normally available. There is no right to appeal this label of "terrorist" during the process, or, if you somehow, by some miracle, are acquitted, you are specifically the right to seek damages through litigation against the government for the horrors they put you through. And I reiterate, even though it hasn't YET been pushed as far as possible, the ill-defined and easily abused definition of a terrorist is a tool of tyranny waiting to simply be picked up in the future and used much more ruthlessly. Also, given virtually all of those of infamy and notoriety that are casebook examples of terrorists have already committed enough crimes and have enough evidence against them for the death penalty, or life in prison in non-capital-punishment jurisdictions AS IS, so do we need this monstrous legal label of "terrorist" anyways, and do you REALLY feel safer with it's existence?

 

[Peuri]

Talk about faux virtue.

And this is the other side of the "there are good people on both sides" moral equivalence coin that an increasing number of people find objectionable.

Even if one side is destroying the discourse in a nation, the answer is never to jump in and engage in the same manner. That is the road to radicalization and civil war. I mean, what is the end point of this, "culture war", America seems to be engaged in at the moment according to some? What could possibly happen that made a portion of the people not support Trump? When the media of the opposite camp has told enough jokes about the man of the orange face? That will only feed the flames of anger. What made me open up and listen to what the more right wing people had to say was the excessive Trump bashing on Colbert's late night show. I don't like Trump, but god, what help is it to constantly ridicule your political enemies and paint them as idiots, even if they are idiots. The nation is obviously wounded somehow to want to put someone such as Trump on the helm and kick everyone's Lego towers to the ground in the playing pen. It doesn't help to put up the middle finger in the people's face that have been wounded somehow. The same goes for the right. It doesn't help to paint all of the "left" as the perennial enemy of the bald eagle totem. One side has to stop and listen. Preferably both, of course.

 

[Estebonrober]

I'm not watching an annoying homemade video by some basement revolutionary or philosopher. One of the things I detest most about the current Internet Age is people linking videos as responses and expecting the other to sit through it. I ONLY watch YouTube for official music videos and, occasionally, old amusing television commercials from my youth in the '80's I have fond memories of. If it isn't in a text article, it isn't worth my time. I'm sorry, but my stance across the board - it's not just you or this unwatched video.

You should watch it, it is interesting. The guy makes a convincing case on why antifa aren't fascists and why you shouldn't equivocate the two.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Yeah but time spent watching it is time not spent listening to music or watching fun stuff.
I can only have one video open at a time and right now that video is a Tool Album.
......
And on a completely random note regarding the thread title;
Quite a few Antifa members do seem to like rocks. Especially throwing them.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Don't you understand the fundamental flaw of having a legal term called "terrorist," that can be applied by law-enforcement, often arbitrarily and with very flimsy and ill-defined limits on paper

Defining something in legal terms is not fundamentally flawed. It is a mandatory step in having a lawful, consistently decent society.

Vague laws and arbitrary enforcement on the other hand are serious issues that pervade more topics than this one unfortunately, and they are flawed without exception.

There is no right to appeal this label of "terrorist" during the process

If you're saying they should just be tried for whatever crimes they commit I'm fine with that. Similar to "hate speech", intent-based law is asinine. Just work with the tangible crimes.

"Terrorist" isn't that complicated, but it also doesn't need legal baggage. It is illegally using force for political means. Antifa does illegally use force (which is all that should be relevant in a criminal sense) and is clear on its political position/reasons for doing so. It's an easy way to describe the activity in one word rather than many.

I agree it does not seem useful in the legal sense compared to observable illegal actions. If X clubs Y over the head, X's alleged motivation is given unreasonable consideration in modern society. If X lacks insanity defense, the same crime should receive the same punishment. In that regard we don't seem to disagree.

Also a bit tangential but

I ONLY watch YouTube for official music videos and, occasionally, old amusing television commercials from my youth in the '80's I have fond memories of. If it isn't in a text article, it isn't worth my time.

There are a lot of pretty useful how-tos and interesting stuff that isn't politically charged like PBS space-time and such, assuming you're not the cat videos and "let's play" sort. I've found these videos to give me solutions faster than scumming forums in some cases, especially for step-by-step stuff seeing the steps done outright is helpful.

You should watch it, it is interesting. The guy makes a convincing case on why antifa aren't fascists and why you shouldn't equivocate the two.

They are authoritarian, you can certainly be that w/o being fascist.

 

[Lexicus]

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

I read the entire tweet thread, just not seeing where Johnson called for "mob rule". Was it typed in a white-on-white font or something?

 

[Patine]

You should watch it, it is interesting. The guy makes a convincing case on why antifa aren't fascists and why you shouldn't equivocate the two.

I didn't equate the two. Not once. @Berzerker did, and a couple others did, but I didn't once, and in fact I corrected his fast-and-loose, sloppy, and far-too-expansive use of words like "Fascist" myself on this thread. Why are you pointing your at me for this now? Have you not been paying attention?