[RD] Why y'all always trying to defend Nazis?

[REDY]

Now that is complete nonsense. There is nothing benevolent about Assad. He only ever cared about his own power, and when people complained about mistreatment he brutally beat them down. Acting as if the current situation of mostly facing religious fanatics has anything to do with the way the civil war started is odd to say the least. There was a broad group of people involved in the uprising, from all over the spectrum, students and workers, Assad's own military and yes, also some religious fanatics. There was no coherent group that led the effort, which is exactly what destroyed the moderate rebels in the longrun. The government could hang on somewhat due to foreign support from Russia or Iran, though it had been on the brink of destruction and couldn't try to take back the country on its own. The rebels had no such support from anyone and being a ragtag bunch of people had no way to properly organize, unlike religious fanatics (or even ISIS) which already had a structure to begin with. Not to mention the Turkish support for these groups. After years of war, the only ones left standing are those with foreign backing, or those who could draw in a lot of support from fanatics from all over the world (ISIS). At this stage it is about an authoritarian dictatorship, various religious groups that only survive with Turkish backing, the Kurds, and a collapsing ISIS. But that's not hpw the civil war started, and linking the early rebels with what is left now is nothing but a disgrace.

Nobody was for his replacement. After all, there was no united opossition. He compromised everything and was opened for everything. Who has done transition from socialist economy to social markert economy better? Russia? Cuba? North Korea? Which country in ME was more democracy than Assad´s Syria? He had just not time for it and he stood in the way of oppponents wanting fully democratic/islamic state. Both was unrealistic and opossed from majority. What he should do right away and what was most demanded was done immediately (reverse of ban of niqabs in schools, closing the casino). But muslim brotherhood and foreign powers (especially France) made dirty work leading to sectarian and religious war where came other interventions, doesnt matter concessions and promises.

 

[Traitorfish]

Looked like your analogy was blaming the Jews. If I start a fight that erupts into a street brawl, how do I escape responsibility when someone dies? I lie to myself... I tell me I was saving lives, yeah, thats the ticket. Why are you comparing Jews to antifa btw? Why are you even bringing them into this?

A neo-Nazi commits an indiscriminate attack on protesters, killing one and wounding over a dozen, and your concern is that the Nazis are going to come out of this looking bad?

You really don't have any kind of moral compass at all, do you?

 

[Camikaze]

I don't think it's been posted in this thread before, but it's probably useful considering the opinion of that renowned conservative, Noam Chomsky - http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/noam-chomsky-antifa-is-a-major-gift-to-the-right/article/2631786

"As for Antifa, it's a minuscule fringe of the Left, just as its predecessors were," Noam Chomsky told the Washington Examiner. "It's a major gift to the Right, including the militant Right, who are exuberant."

[...]

Chomsky said, "what they do is often wrong in principle – like blocking talks – and [the movement] is generally self-destructive."

"When confrontation shifts to the arena of violence, it's the toughest and most brutal who win – and we know who that is," said Chomsky, a professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "That's quite apart from the opportunity costs – the loss of the opportunity for education, organizing, and serious and constructive activism."

 

[Traitorfish]

Chomsky's usual weird reverence for universal civil rights aside- do you imagine, Noam, that those Spanish anarchist you lionise had a lot of patience for the free speech of the Falange?- he does have a point. The tendency of physical force anti-fascists ("Antifa" is a dumb word and I'm not using it) to escalate every confrontation to violence is perhaps not a winning tactic for a left which is, let's be quite honest, not very generally characterised by its athleticism or aggression. Not least because the police are as a general rule pro-fascist to some extent or another, where they're not simply fascists themselves. As much as strangling fascists with their own intestines is an inherently noble thing, it might not be the very smartest way to go about building a mass-movement.

Where I'd disagree is in the notion that this is a prevalent enough current to lose sleep over. Physical force anti-fascism is only a major current in countries like Greece and Russia, where street-level politics is already characterised by a degree of aggression and violence; there isn't violence because anti-fascists are violent, the anti-fascists are violent because they find themselves in a violent place. What you get in the United States and in Western Europe is, I don't want to say cosplay, but it's mostly people upholding the basic practice of moral force anti-fascism while borrowing the rhetoric and posture of physical force anti-fascism. They may be more willing to scuffle, but scuffle happens when you get any too groups of mutually hostile people in put them in the same place, it's why ever major football match in the UK has a police presence, it's not evidence of a realised strategy of violence. If it seems otherwise, it's because you're allowing an hysterical and essentially reactionary news media to do your thinking for you, rather than looking to the reports of those actually on the ground engaged with the fascist threat.

For a guy who wrote Manufacturing goddam Consent, he's really starting to lose his grip.

 

[Camikaze]

That's the practical half of the point, though - if you're looking at whether anti-fascist violence in the US is objectively prevalent or in any way useful, the answer is clearly that it isn't. So what does that small fringe element achieve? They provide fodder for a 'both sides' media narrative. I don't think any of the above quote, at least, concedes that the violent anti-fascist movement is anything more than a handful of guys with one pointy stick between them.

The universal "we must always allow fascists their free speech" and "we must always confront fascists with violence" both seem pretty dumb, ignoring any sense of context, and usually resorting to completely tenuous historical analogies.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm not convinced that the "small fringe element" actually exists. Not in the sense intended, of a distinct people who set out with a plan for violence and achieve it, not in the sense people mean when they say- wretch, heave, vomit- "Antifa". There are people who come dressed like they're looking for a fight, and some of them will find it. Some will turn up dressed for a fight and do nothing more than protest, others will turn up dressed for a protest and find themselves a fight. Most will turn up dressed for a protest and find it. The dynamics of a situation like this can't be boiled down to Bad People with Bad Ideas.

 

[Camikaze]

While I'm also sceptical of the coherence of some monolithic 'Antifa', as if it were an organised political party, it's certainly the case that there is an identifiable movement of people who self-identify as 'antifa', who share some core set of beliefs as to purpose and tactics. For someone like myself who hasn't previously known much about this movement, I found this article quite useful - https://newrepublic.com/article/144723/antifa-isnt-hobby-fad-qa-mark-bray

When we talk about anti-fascism we need to see it as a tradition of pan-left politics that is not reducible simply to opposition to fascism. It is also informed by commonly shared anti-capitalist and revolutionary outlooks. In that way, an anti-fascist is not simply anyone who opposes fascism. Anti-fascism is a specific strand or tendency that opposes fascism from a pan-radical position.

[...]

The black bloc is a street tactic. It’s not a specific group. And one of the most common mistakes of journalists is to treat it as if it were a specific group.

[...]

It’s not a specific group, it’s a mode of politics, it’s an activity. Anyone can form a group and call themselves that and do the things that they do. There is no central command, although some countries have networks. In the United States, there’s the Torch network which groups about a dozen anti-fascist groups. But they’re all autonomous even within that. So it’s a way of doing politics. It’s also an interpretation of strategy in response to fascism.

[...]

Most of what antifa groups do is nonviolent. Most of it has to do with research and monitoring and tracking and making phone calls to venue owners and organizing boycotts against the American Legion that are hosting white power rock events. So the spectacle of confrontation is really usually a last resort, when other methods have failed, to disrupt these groups. It’s a small percentage of what is done.

(And to be clear, I don't mean to conflate everyone falling into 'antifa' as described above with the 'small fringe element' I referred to in my previous post - the 'small fringe element' are just those who act out a particular 'antifa' tactic).

(Even more vomit-inducing that the word itself is the apparent tendency of some to pronounce it an-tifa, not anti-fa).

 

[Lexicus]

The tendency of physical force anti-fascists ("Antifa" is a dumb word and I'm not using it) to escalate every confrontation to violence is perhaps not a winning tactic for a left which is, let's be quite honest, not very generally characterised by its athleticism or aggression.

This is what I've tried to tell people - isn't the right better at organized violence than the left, essentially by definition?

 

[Ajidica]

This is what I've tried to tell people - isn't the right better at organized violence than the left, essentially by definition?

Not always.

 

[Commodore]

rather than looking to the reports of those actually on the ground engaged with the fascist threat.

I was with you up until this right here. For all that talk of not buying into the hysteria of the reactionary news media, you seemed to have bought into it a little bit yourself. Just as you question the existence of even a fringe element of this violent anti-fascist movement, you should also be questioning the existence of this mythical "fascist threat" the media has cooked up as well. There is no fascist threat in the West, at least not an organized one.

 

[luiz]

Chomsky's usual weird reverence for universal civil rights aside- do you imagine, Noam, that those Spanish anarchist you lionise had a lot of patience for the free speech of the Falange?- he does have a point. The tendency of physical force anti-fascists ("Antifa" is a dumb word and I'm not using it) to escalate every confrontation to violence is perhaps not a winning tactic for a left which is, let's be quite honest, not very generally characterised by its athleticism or aggression. Not least because the police are as a general rule pro-fascist to some extent or another, where they're not simply fascists themselves. As much as strangling fascists with their own intestines is an inherently noble thing, it might not be the very smartest way to go about building a mass-movement.

Where I'd disagree is in the notion that this is a prevalent enough current to lose sleep over. Physical force anti-fascism is only a major current in countries like Greece and Russia, where street-level politics is already characterised by a degree of aggression and violence; there isn't violence because anti-fascists are violent, the anti-fascists are violent because they find themselves in a violent place. What you get in the United States and in Western Europe is, I don't want to say cosplay, but it's mostly people upholding the basic practice of moral force anti-fascism while borrowing the rhetoric and posture of physical force anti-fascism. They may be more willing to scuffle, but scuffle happens when you get any too groups of mutually hostile people in put them in the same place, it's why ever major football match in the UK has a police presence, it's not evidence of a realised strategy of violence. If it seems otherwise, it's because you're allowing an hysterical and essentially reactionary news media to do your thinking for you, rather than looking to the reports of those actually on the ground engaged with the fascist threat.

For a guy who wrote Manufacturing goddam Consent, he's really starting to lose his grip.

And where does beating up a Syrian immigrat and a woman giving an interview fit with all of that? Where is the moral force?

 

[caketastydelish]

Hitler was invading neighboring countries because of the Jews? Or the Jews were blockading a park Hitler and his fans were attending to protest the removal of civil war statues?

What has caused you to have such antisemetic views? Did a Jewish man sleep with your wife?

 

[Kyriakos]

Where I'd disagree is in the notion that this is a prevalent enough current to lose sleep over. Physical force anti-fascism is only a major current in countries like Greece and Russia, where street-level politics is already characterised by a degree of aggression and violence; there isn't violence because anti-fascists are violent, the anti-fascists are violent because they find themselves in a violent place. What you get in the United States and in Western Europe is, I don't want to say cosplay, but it's mostly people upholding the basic practice of moral force anti-fascism while borrowing the rhetoric and posture of physical force anti-fascism.

Actually, antifa here is violent cause that is how they are. Even hit with an unprecedented and largely artificial financial crisis, this country and society is surely not as violent as the bulk of the EU; where do you base your idea that it is?

It is probably down to chance if a violent person will end up fa or antifa. Let's not pretend that either are intellectuals.

 

[Traitorfish]

I was with you up until this right here. For all that talk of not buying into the hysteria of the reactionary news media, you seemed to have bought into it a little bit yourself. Just as you question the existence of even a fringe element of this violent anti-fascist movement, you should also be questioning the existence of this mythical "fascist threat" the media has cooked up as well. There is no fascist threat in the West, at least not an organized one.

So why do they keep killing people?

Actually, antifa here is violent cause that is how they are. Even hit with an unprecedented and largely artificial financial crisis, this country and society is surely not as violent as the bulk of the EU; where do you base your idea that it is?

It is probably down to chance if a violent person will end up fa or antifa. Let's not pretend that either are intellectuals.

Well, scratch "Greece", then, if your pride doesn't allow you to concede that a country in which immigrants and leftists are routinely terrorised by neo-Nazi street gangs has a tiny wee problem with political violence. The point is that you rarely find anti-fascists initiating a culture of political violence.

 

[Kyriakos]

It isn't really about pride, though. GD are crap, but i doubt they have much terrorizing power to speak of, other than being threatening in their rhetoric. I should note that i don't even watch tv since 6 years now, though i am not aware of gangs of neo-nazis (eg GD) operating (other than their actual party members ). Anyway, you should take into account the forced situation economy/collapse-wise. But yeah, i agree that there is some political violence, just am not sure if it is realistic to claim it is more than the average EU, i mean there are murders of refugees or people who just look like them in the EU often enough, let alone terrorism and mass killing during such hits.

 

[Traitorfish]

Fair point. The contrast I was trying to draw was between Athens and London, rather than, say, Athens and Budapest.

 

[Ryika]

So why do they keep killing people?

Islamists keep killing people. Do you think it would be fair to say that there is an "Islamist threat" to the west? I mean, in a way there is, right? And unlike the fascists, they don't even have to organize to make that threat manifest, and could blow you up without giving you a chance to even realize what's happening.

But I would say that "Islamist threat" implies much more than is justified by the actual danger to society that Islamists pose, just as "fascist threat" implies more than a few people being killed while the actual amount of fascist action going on is still extremely low.

 

[Traitorfish]

So where on the scale of "irritant" to "menace" do we place fascists?

Should we be talking about the "fascist nuisance"? I'll admit I'm tempted, simply because I know how sensitive they are to status.

 

[Yeekim]

Should we be talking about the "fascist nuisance"?

Endorsed.

 

[luiz]

Considering more people are killed by their toasters than by far right extremists in the US nowadays, I think the scale of the Nazi threat is being blown a wee bit out of proportion.