Generic and Unfounded Opinions on Fascism
Alright folks, I'm pretty sure you already listened someone saying x or y about Fascism. First of all, there are many people just randomly repeating some generic stuff, and, of course, some people already read some postmodern literature on Fascism. What I do not see commonly is someone who actually read some real fascist philosophy, and with "Fascism" I mean Italian Fascism, of B. Mussolini, A. Rocco, I. Balbo, G. Gentile, N. Giani, M. Palmieri, and so forth. Have any of you guys read any real fascist work?
Comments (152)
I know what fascism is, it is basically whatever I don't like is fascist. Capitalism is fascist, racism is fascist, sexism is fascist, disagreeing with me is definitely fascist.
This is unironically what I hear every time someone tries to define what Fascism is without really reading anything at all. I mean, come on, it is not that hard to read 2 or 3 books of fascist authors in order to understand what Fascism is.
I haven't read any Italian fascism, but I did read Carl Schmidt years ago so if we're talking German fascism I might have something to contribute but I'd have to jog my memory a bit.
I just read some books about Fascism's doctrine, Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile (La Douttrina del Fascismo and National Fascism Party (1922)) are examples.
I read some other books about the third position, as the Integralism's authors, like Plínio Salgado (O que é o Integralismo?) and Gustavo Barroso (Brasil, Colônia de Banqueiros).
Gustavo Barroso.
Also, the following work presents some key-concepts concerning these political theories, it may be very useful: La trasformazione dello Stato (1927).
Quoting Bertoldo
This is interesting. In what way do you think they were different?
I have read a lot of those text. What are you interested in talking about? It is your dime.
There are Ethiopians who developed a different view but go on, quote something from these fine fellows.
Plínio Salgado speeching.
oh yeah, i read the Futurist manifesto...it was batshit retarded
That is a country mile from supporting race as an essential component of collective experience. But there is nothing in the Syndicalist point of view to resist the celebration of national identity which made joining with the Nazis so easy.
Quoting Bertoldo
Yeah, I wouldn't have expected Schmitt to draw on Italian fascism, but interestingly in his major works - Political Theology and Concept of the Political - he doesn't push for fascism along racial lines despite being an anti-Semite personally. I'm utterly uninterested in any sort of racial justification for fascism. It's when philosophers make the case for fascism in their own abstract terms that things become interesting. You can still see echoes of some of Schmitt's thoughts, particularly the emphasis on friend/enemy distinction, in later neoconservative thinkers like Strauss.
But yeah when it comes to the Italians I'm lost. I was never assigned any of them in undergrad nor is it my cultural background.
Mussolini lost all the Italian history by doing this, personally speaking. He wrote in Ceneri e Braci on Il Popolo d'Italia about the Italian heroism, and cited Enrico Toti, Rismondi, Decio Raggi... I am pretty sure that these Italian heroes died for a genuine Italian thought, for the true unity of our Nation, and Mussolini's subservience to the German culture and way of thinking destroyed what he himself defended for several years. The point is that Italy radically changed in order to accept the German requirements.
I will certainly try to go deeper in his works. Personally, what I consider to know of Schmitt's philosophy is kinda precarious. By the way, thank you for giving answers tracing his philosophy!
Also, the relation that I have with Italian history is kinda deep, lol; I'm a descendant of Italians, and I'm fluent with the Italian, besides the fact that I studied Fascism for several years...
The essence of fascism found in being opposed to certain threats, which evoke strong emotions and are perceived to be so dangerous that conventional morality must be set aside. It leads to a permanent state of emergency in which the state imposes militaristic regimentation on the entire society.
Fascism implies a rigid social hierarchy. In conventional fascism, ethics are based on social roles which are set by higher moral authorities. These moral authorities include the Church, which must be allied with the state. The highest moral authority is the head of state, who is a person who speaks for all of the people of the nation. This means that if a person disagrees with the leader, they are by definition doing something wrong even if they are making a valid point. Authority is more important than truth.
Stalinism is a variant of fascism in which all of these relations exist, except that additionally the overt recognition of this hierarchical moral authority is also prohibited. Thus, the hierarchical leadership still functions identically to in fascism, but portray themselves as merely the servants of the people. The people are compelled to participate in unequal power relations even as they must publicly say that these relations are equal.
The modern Antifa movement in America is actually a Stalinist movement, which ironically implies that it is also fascist. It is philosophically motivated by a misreading of Popper's Open Society and Its Enemies in which any person who says something sexist, racist, etc. is immediately branded an enemy and immediately deserving of being deplatformed, ridiculed, and subject to violent attack. Thus, the Antifa-scist sees in this enemy an existential threat to society and it goes without saying that this perception is accompanied by very strong emotions. The Antifa-scist sets aside his conventional morality to fight against this enemy -- he verbally and physically attacks the enemy, he destroys the enemy's property and interferes with the enemy's business. He would not normally do these things, but he justifies his actions because of the danger he perceives. Fortunately, so far in America, the Antifa-scists have not been able to take power, and so the full reality of their vision has not been realized.
If I make this argument to an Antifa-scist, however, they will claim "Antifa only means antifascist, so anyone who is against fascism is antifa". This obviously conflates the opinion with the organized movement. But it also shows the essence of the Stalinist ideology. Antifa certainly has its organizers and groups who inform their members where to go to protest or riot and who to deplatform. But to point this out is to be against Antifa and therefore a fascist. Thus, it is prohibited to mention the hierarchical nature of Antifa's moral authority. So my argument is almost complete.
It remains to prove exactly how these Antifa-scists would behave if they did actually take power. Personally, I'd rather not find out.
Hello, mate! Good to see recommendations, thank you so much.
I'll leave some works here, just to make sure that someday you can learn at least something on Fascism.
Il Diario della Volontà (1927) | La Trasformazione dello Stato (1927) | La Trasformazione dello Stato II (1930) | Civiltà Fascista, Civiltà dello Spirito (1937) | La Dottrina del Fascismo (1932).
If it will be of any help, just get in touch, I can dedicate some of my time to give you lectures both on the Italian language and on Fascism.
Best regards!
Who knew that scrubbing Swastikas off walls was the same as scrawling Swastikas on walls?
Right-wing logic is demented.
Insofar as someone is just doing nonviolent, legal acts like this, meant to clean up the community, he is not an Antifa-scist, but an Antifascist. The distinction is important for my argument.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Good thing I'm not using right wing logic.
Then your argument is bunkum, since those guys scrubbing Swastikas off walls..? They're called Antifa. Or sometimes community service workers.
Quoting Garth
Your logic is that of right-wing nutjob shock jocks.
"But if focus is primarily placed on name calling Trump or other luminaries of the current anti-liberal backlash, the focus is shifted to “them” and conveniently deflects attention from the heart of the problem – our own societies and beliefs. We frame the challenge as coming from some sort of extremism that is extraneous and alien to us. This is to obsess over the upshot rather than the cause ... Whatever they are, these people confront us with the failings of our political system and the numerous contradictions in our mainstream societies that get so often ignored or airbrushed. They must be stopped – but only by addressing the deeper social causes of what makes their message appealing to so many others: growing distrust in politics, resentment at the fast pace of change, hardship in everyday life."
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Quoting Kenosha Kid
This is the exact verbal violence, meant to silence me, that I am pointing out is symptomatic of emerging fascism. You are exemplifying the exact difference between Antifa-scism and Antifascism that I am describing while at the same time denying that there is a difference not by making any kind of argument but by just blindly insisting on your own position. Wasn't it the Nazis who first perfected the art of "repeating the lie"? By your own actions in this thread you are literally making my point.
Any social movement can be destroyed from the inside by those who act against the interests of that movement. By refusing to reflect on yourself you are doing just that to your beloved antifascism. I wish to move America and every other country in the world toward an open, Democratic society. If you share that goal with me, great! But it is important that we think about our own actions and how they affect the trajectories of the social movements we participate in.
A group of people, unafraid to fight back if attacked, go about trying to remove the violence of fascists and you're happy to misrepresent them. I validly criticise your logic and I'm "attempting to silence" you. When did fascists become so whiny? Your post on Antifa was nothing more than intolerant propaganda (which btw is not the purpose of this site). It was not a serious criticism of the group or its aims or means. If you want better than "verbal violence", do better. But in my experience there are no sane, well-adjusted fascists. They at best sound like you.
In terms of praxis, antifa's a highly decentralised popular front, Stalin's politics was a centralised united front. In terms of ideology; the popular front aspect of antifa makes it a hodgepodge of liberal social democracts, anarchists, communists and others; doctrinally mixed; the united front politics of Stalinism was notorious for its commitment to doctrinal purity (whatever the doctrine was at the time).
For a sane characterisation of fascism, as distinct from authoritarianism, see here.
While there may be social democrats in antifa, the ideology of the group is not liberal in the least. A liberal who wants to join the antifa movement in america and maintain their liberalism honestly has no idea what's going on. Look at some of the users on this forum who are actually antifa/black bloc members and ask yourself whether you are really the same.
I think they can and do. There just aren't enough committed anarchists and communists to make up everyone who acts with the intention of disrupting fascism.
I suspect you're using liberal in the "classic liberal" sense and not the sense I meant it; by a liberal social democrat I intended a reformist believer in the institutions of liberal democracy. Someone who broadly approves of the way things are set up fundamentally, but criticises/protests flaws when they see them. Those people who will act against resurgent nationalism, political oppression and systemic issues without wanting to overthrow states (anarchism) or the world order of capitalism (communism) [or both].
Italy didn't have the kind of internal racial tension that Germany had, but it does not follow that Italian fascism was not racist. They had extremely racist views about their neighbours.
Do you know anything about neo-fascism in Germany?
Yeah, this was the sense of liberalism that I was using. I wasn't talking about classical liberalism. I don't believe that a liberal social democrat would fit in in the modern antifascist movement in the US, or the black bloc elsewhere. Antifa fundamentally seeks to stifle certain views, and I get it - in Europe they do this but in America it's against the principles our country was founded on and moreover it sets a dangerous precedent.
An important part of a liberal arts education is genuinely exploring views which we don't like. Antifa is not fundamentally a movement about discourse and the free exchange of ideas; it is about stifling any potentially dangerous idea before it is allowed to spread. It is a fundamentally illiberal movement.
Antifa seek to stifle neo-Nazi and white supremacist views. I suppose to an extent the US is founded on the latter, but that's not something to be proud of.
I was saying that what antifa is doing is contrary to our first amendment. In any case it sets an extremely dangerous precedent as more and more ideas could under some interpretations fall under the banner of "white supremacy" - zionism, european cultural pride, capitalism.
An amendment, by definition, is an alteration of the principles your country was founded upon. I do agree that religions and ideologies can be put under a single umbrella, but the first amendment protects your right to personal belief: it does not protect your perceived right to make the world a platform for those beliefs, and it certainly does not protect your perceived right to act to make a world that is violently hostile to others.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech. Take your undemocratic trash elsewhere. Very convenient of you to avoid my second point, as well.
:lol:
Very convenient of you to avoid my first.
Freedom of speech does not mean a freedom to occupy whatever platform you choose. You do not have the freedom to take over university spaces, take over media platforms, or put up pro-Nazi posters on other people's or public property. Nor does it mean that others must be silent so that your speech must be heard: you do not have a right to be heard in a vacuum!
Your freedom to put up a poster that says "Kill the Jews" on, say, the window of the house you own (not renting or mortgaged) has been impinged on, but not by Antifa, rather by hate speech legislation. This speaks to my third point:
Quoting Kenosha Kid
I know that freedom of speech doesn't give the right to whatever platform you want, but you're still allowed to express your ideas verbally and in writing. The first amendment goes far beyond just the right to believe, which is very weak.
I avoided your first point because it was wrong but I didn't feel like getting into it because your second point was more more egregious.
I don't wanna pivot between conceptual and demographic characterisations. I'm making the demographic claim that social democratic liberals can be antifascist actors, and that the majority of contemporary antifascist actors are not smash the state anarchists or revolution now communists; simply because those doctrines are comparatively rarely held among contemporary progressives.
I do believe that such hardline positions are disproportionately represented relative to the general population in antifascist actors, though, and that antifascist organisers as a demographic category are (historically) even more likely to have more hard line positions.
I bet you'd like David Hahn's "Physical Resistance: a Hundred Years of Struggle", a history of antifascist movements.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I think that's rather uncharitable. It strikes me that someone who commits to antifascist praxis does so from a principled place of understanding, study and experience. EG, the antifascist praxis of Jewish communist groups just before, during and after WW2. (Emphasised in the book I referenced). You don't have to agree with it to see it as a reasoned position.
I'm sure from their perspective it is actually protecting the liberal rights you hold dear, cf paradox of tolerance. The only conditions under which a "free marketplace of ideas" could exist sustainably are ones with well enforced rules and laws of conduct. When those rules are rejected wholesale or too weak, the fragility of "the free marketplace of ideas" is laid bare; cf "money as speech". Whenever absolute decorum for speech is desired, enforcement of the principles that uphold it is required too. In that context, antifascist action is a democratic check-and-balance.
Good, so you understand that you are not protected in defacing property you don't own, or to assemble free from counter-protestors. And presumably you're not going to suggest that fascists should be free to engage in violent acts but Antifa not free to defend themselves. What threat do you actually perceive from Antifa then? It can't be their anti-fascist position which, by your own argument, must be as protected as anti-black sentiment.
Anyway, it's a non-starter to use the first amendment as an argument against Antifa since they're a direct action group, not a reformist group. The first amendment protects citizens from laws made by the government, and Antifa do not seek to reform those laws.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Really? Let's take your right as an 18+ year old American to vote. Your argument is that this amendment, passed in the early 1970s, was one of the founding principles of your country? Or that every amendment since the Bill or Rights is an attack on the founding principles of your country?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
And, believe it or not, I didn't feel like getting into a point that wasn't relevant to my argument. It's rather hypocritical to think I was obliged to respond to everything you have to say, yet you are not.
Quoting fdrake
Ok.
Quoting fdrake
If by "antifascist actors" you mean actual members of antifa or the ones that dress in black and go to protests I'd like to dig a little deeper into this. I'd love to have these statistics.
Quoting fdrake
Absolutely.
Interesting. I've been using Mark Bray's book on antifascism for my main source. Bray himself is very sympathetic to the movement and a leftist himself. I'll look into your source when I get the time.
Quoting fdrake
Wouldn't you say that depends on the person though? We have some antifascists on this site who have made some very violent, gruesome statements towards people like Biden and others. I think it's disingenuous to group in every modern antifascist with, say, a Jewish anti-Nazi fighter around the time of WWII. Even as a Jew not every anti-Nazi fighter was good; there was a famous plot that was foiled when a group of Jewish partisans after WWII sought to poison the German water supply.
I get what you're saying and you make a good conceptual point here. I don't disagree with what you write here.
A major idea of antifa is "punch a Nazi." For me it's very emotionally satisfying to see a Nazi get punched, but ultimately it's not an effective way to deal with Nazism or racism in a non-emergency environment. I hate to say it, but the antifascism movement, much like the neoconservatives of the Bush years, have a habit of viewing the current era as Germany, 1933 and that it is incumbent on us now to act immediately and decisively (with the neocons it was Saddam in Iraq, today it is the far right in America.) If you believe that America today is basically Germany, 1933 I don't know what to tell you. In war there is no talk, only violence.
It really should be an absolute last resort to start punching Nazis or white supremacists. It's much, much better to try to educate them... not even that but befriending them can make a huge difference. A black guy named Darryl Davis managed to befriend over 200 KKK members and as a result got them to turn away from their beliefs. If someone believes black people are vicious, stupid animals how is them getting punched by a black person going to change that??
Secondly, I believe racism is inherently undemocratic. It makes sense to me that antifascists would want to ban racism/white supremacy just like they'd want to ban fascism. The problem is with the enforcement - what constitutes racism/white supremacy? On today's college campuses they make the argument that Zionism, European cultural pride and capitalism are all manifestations of white supremacy. Do we ban advocacy of those too? Today's white supremacists are much more crafty - they're much more likely to "advocate for white people" or "support a white homeland" than saying that they think blacks or minorities are inferior. I'm okay with informing people's bosses that their workers are doing racist activities, but punching them is ineffectual at best and banning X sort of speech sets a dangerous precedent. How exactly do you define it?
:100:
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Because they commit violence on college campuses and disrupt college speakers such as Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson. Those aren't fascists.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Antifa is using violence and intimidation to shut down the rights guaranteed to us.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Neither. An amendment can be added and it's not an attack on the founding principles. Obviously something being passed in the 1970s wouldn't be a founding principle....
Quoting Kenosha Kid
"What constitutes fascism" is an extremely relevant question. If you believe it's good to punch a Nazi or a racist and violent suppress that type of speech, what about Zionism or capitalism? Can we punch capitalists if capitalism is essentially white supremacy? This is a really important question.
I don't have 'em. To my mind we're both speculating on the demographics:
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I'd be happy to revise my opinion on the demography of ideas in antifacist actors given present data about it! The historical demography seems mixed; considering the record seems to be mostly concern institutions that approved of antifacist action - they were communist, socialist, anarchist and left allies. Or were institutions made by marginalised communities in response to the threat of violence. The two groups were allied and intersected. AFAIK they also intersected with the membership of major political institutions in the UK (unions and the Labour party).
It seems to take a perceived stage of emergency, as you say, to generate common approval of antifascist action among liberals.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
A person's reasons depend on the person. I don't think "a persons reasons depend on the person" is an allowed move in the game of ideological/demographic generalisation we've engaged in so far. It destroys all generalisation.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I think there are decent grounds for comparison. A highly nationalist and xenophobic political faction has widespread appeal, it's lead by a demagogue who by all rights has engaged in violent suppression of peaceful protest (see the Lafeyette Square Incident), has publicly signalled support for a white supremacist militia and so on. I would like to add demonising antifascist actors to that list, as it's easily seen as a preparatory move to "at first coming for the socialists" as the poem goes, charging protestors with sedition tolls the bells for the same group.
I don't mean to convince you that the emergency is as great as it was back in WW2, I mean to convince you that it's reasonable to conclude that the current state of things is a growing state of emergency. And of such emergencies, we seem to agree that "prevention is better than cure" Antifascist action is a preventative measure in the same way that education is on a societal level.
Don't of course take that as a blank "fight by any means necessary" cheque, things can indeed get worse than white supremacist militiamen stabbing 4 counter protestors in the street because they're contesting an attempt to overturn an election... But I can see why people of conscience and reason could conclude that now is not the time for patience only.
I'm with you 100% that widespread antifascist education would be a good thing for society, though. It just seems that there's no way to educate the knives out of those protesters' bodies.
So you wouldn't mind a violent response to a KKK rally on the grounds of a university, or would you?
Wait, now you're back to saying that you have a right to be heard. I thought we'd dispensed with that. You're essentially arguing against the right for people to protest, as long as they're the wrong people.
And these protests are hardly an Antifa issue. No doubt many self-identifying members would protest Jordan Peterson, but the Venn diagram of Antifa and non-Antifa JP-haters has a huge overlap.
As for violence on college campuses, I presume you mean the Berkley protests in which Trump supporters and and anti-Trump protestors, which naturally included Antifa members among their numbers, clashed. That was unambiguously wrong. Few would pause to condemn them.
Is it your view then that the anti-fascist, anti-racist, anti-white-supremacist movement as a whole must be considered as such? I ask because you don't seem to have such concerns about far-right groups such as neo-Nazis and the KKK who have a more consistent history of violence (consider Charlottesville, for instance).
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Your right is that the government will not pass laws that allow you to express your persona beliefs. Antifa is not a reformist group. How have they then breached your first amendment rights? Explain it, rather than just repeatedly claiming it, because as far as I can see Antifa has resulted in precisely zero government legislation against your freedom of expression.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Okay, so you agree then that an amendment is a change to the founding principles your country was based on. You also seem fine with the founding principles your country was based on changing. It seems now quite a hollow complaint.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
So you DO think I'm obliged to treat all your points but you are free to shrug off the ones you "didn't feel like" responding to? Do you see how dual standards is endemic throughout your thought?
Good luck even getting a KKK rally on the college campus. Now that'll be the day.
But no I don't believe in violence unless its self defense.
So you would have been opposed to the American Revolution.
There's a difference between violence for national defense or in the case of a civil war versus violence within a society. It's a very different kind of thing.
The American revolution started out as random violence (against property) culminating in a million dollars worth of tea being dumped into Boston Harbor. There was no self defense to it.
So your line isn't self defense, is it?
If you don't want to address one of my points then fine, but that particular point I thought was a pretty strong one. Our discussions will never end if we insist on responding to every little sidetrack. Like this little sidetrack into the constitution it's not really that relevant to our main argument. Like below.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
I could respond to this but I'm forgetting its relevancy. An amendment could just an addition and it could not contradict the essential founding principles. Freedom of speech is an essential founding principle. Check out the bill of rights. Future amendments can't contradict the bill of rights.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Yeah, antifa not being a reformist group and instead being a revolutionary group basically means that they have no respect for laws. That is why I do not like them.
Alright, I am blaming antifa for their actions. Even if its not a first amendment issue they are just being thugs. Is that an acceptable explanation?
Quoting Kenosha Kid
If someone is in a private forum like a university or a governmental hearing you need to abide by the rules. A public protest is a different matter. If you're in a public protest of course other people can shout you down.
Antifa has also assaulted journalists.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
I obviously condemn the KKK and neo-Nazis, that goes without saying. Obviously I like to judge people more as individuals but I'm most worried about the increasingly violent tendencies of that leftist movement. It's also much more popular and powerful than the right I think and it has roots on college campuses. If it were the other way around the far right was capturing young people's minds on college campuses everywhere I'd be extremely alarmed and I'd go after them, but it's somewhat scary to me when mainstream thinking is increasingly in favor of violent suppression of ideas and rejects traditional liberal values.
The American revolution was a struggle between a colonizer and her colony. I'll certainly condemn some methods that American patriots used against the British though. In any case the American revolution isn't a good comparison to draw to today's situation. I also think the violence that the Americans used was coordinated.
As I said, it started as random violence (usually involving fire) in Boston. Any historian would agree that there wouldn't have been a revolution without that chaotic start.
The violence associated with George Floyd protests was exactly like the Boston Tea Party, so you can't say yes to one and not the other.
The George Floyd protests were centered around racial justice and the issue of police treatment of minorities.
The Boston Tea Party happened because wealthy New England merchants like John Hancock were getting their prices undermined by the British who subjected them to unfair economic practices.... the two issues are quite different. The American revolution was violence towards the British government which was the mother colony.
Nobody is really supporting violence against American cops due to George Floyd, at least not sane people.
The typical historian says it was caused by an economic downturn that followed the French Indian War. Rather than rich Bostonians, it was dock craftsmen who feared debt. Back then going into debt was to descend into inescapable slavery.
As Boston was being hammered by the closure of Boston Harbor by the British, Jefferson used the event to create solidarity among the colonists.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I agree. Most of that violence was directed at property though, not people.
I see you're digging in on this. I was just looking for where your red line really is. It's obviously not self defense, but what? I'm guessing you tend to approve of violence when it's perpetrated by your allies?
Where the red line is in terms of when exactly violence is justified? I can't possibly have an absolute answer for that, so I just use the initiation of violence as a rule of thumb, especially within civilization.
It's a really tough subject, and especially when you get into international relations or violence between large civilizations or groups that things get really, really murky. Like it can seem that pre-emptive strikes can be justified, and that's likely the initiation of violence. I supported Israel pre-emptively striking down the Egyptian Air Force in...I believe it was the war of 1973 when it was clear that Egypt & the Arabs were mobilizing to destroy Israel.
However, in normal civilization we don't really face this problem. Ideally, in a functioning society if someone is plotting to hurt you you can report that police and they'll take care of it. If I'm genuinely afraid or I notice someone else is in danger I can call social workers or police. Violence between different civilizations is very different than violence between individuals within a functioning society with a legal system & rules.
Your entire argument against anti-fascism was that it opposes the founding principles of your country. I'm just trying to figure out the logic behind your position.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
So if you're not reformist, you obviously don't respect the laws. That makes no sense. Are you a reformist then?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Okay, so it's nothing constitutional even, you just dislike people who protest on campus, presumably no matter what they're protesting about. It's college. There's going to be protests.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
It's bad also to assault journalists including if you're an Antifa member. But also if you're a Trump supporter. Here's a wager... I'm willing to bet that while you tar all anti-fascists with the actions of a few, you're somewhat more about individual accountability and personal responsibility when it comes to Trump supporters, am I right?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
No, you DON'T obviously condemn the KKK and neo-Nazis. Your primary concern is that they are not getting the voice you think they should despite the fact that they are systematically violent and intolerant, that evil anti-fascists are denying them their right to expression by exercising theirs. The hypocrisy of far-right argument is always the same. You DO obviously condemn those that fight back, you go out of your way to do so and tar as many on the left-wing with the same brush as often as you can. Condemning the violence of the right is always a last resort when you realise you can't actually judge the left for rare acts of violence and uphold the long and horrendous history of violence of the right. "No, they're bad to but let's back to Antifa..." It's overtly BS dude. The day the likes of you and Nos OBVIOUSLY condemn the violence of the right wing I will have a heart attack.
When a right-winger goes through the normal process of reserving a university space, are they "taking over university space"?
When the protest against this right-winger begins disrupting the function of the university to the point that the university is forced to rescind their invitation, are the protesters "taking over university space"?
Seems your definition of terms changes based on who they are applied to.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Such as Antifa tearing down statues, confederate flags, and the like.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
When an Antifa identifying person punches a right-wing politician and later the police beat up some Antifa protesters, is this self-defense?
I would definitely face off KKK ralliers with signs and chanting. Maybe a rotten egg or two. It doesn't help anything to hurt people, but it definitely helps to let everyone hear that the KKK has no business being engaged as a serious point of view.
It's all symbolism. It affects the way people think about themselves and how they assess what's acceptable.
When would you decide it's time to stand up and say something? Melodramatic question, but how would you answer it?
You know, you might not know this about me because my username is "Carlos" but I'm actually not hispanic.
I'm actually an Ashkenazi Jew with family from Ukraine, a good portion of which were murdered in cold blood by actual Nazis.
So do you need me to condemn that? Because you never know, I could support it. How many times do I need to condemn that for me to be okay in your book? Should I also condemn the holocaust? I just wanna make sure I'm cool in your book and that I'm one of the good guys.
No but seriously how many times do you need me to say that I condemn right wing aggression, because apparently always mentioning it when you press me isn't enough for you.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
I don't care if you peacefully protest, but don't disrupt presentations. Protest all you want, I don't care.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
I recanted on the first amendment argument. I said that I don't like them because they're thugs.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Good to hear we're on the same page. There are numerous antifa members or antifa sympathizers here who support it, just so you know. You need to educate your compatriots.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Antifa doesn't seek to work within the system, antifa seeks to destroy the system. That's the difference between reformers and revolutionaries.
What an odd thing to say. The only meaning I can extract is that you think it's possible that, if you were Hispanic, it would be understandable that you might pro-fascist.
No, I never thought you were Hispanic.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Well, you tell me. You condemn the entirety of Antifa if one of its members punches a journalist, but you swerve the question of right-wing Trump supporters punching journalists. You believe that fascists have the right to protest even though their systematically violent and hateful, but you disregard anti-fascist expression for being disruptive. Does this sound in any way decent and fair to you?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Fixed your typo.
Btw this seems to be another constant in right-wing arguments: the argument itself is disposable, only the conclusion matters and is constant. Constitutional arguments for your conclusion no longer workin for ya? No need to abandon that conclusion: simply switch argument! It brings to mind far-right Facebook posters throwing up IT'S ABOUT SPACE, NOT RACE images a week after posting anti-Polish bilge.
You're so close!
Nah man, being Ashkenazi Jewish gives me a direct and deeply personal relationship with Nazism that no other racial/ethnic group, with the exception of gypsies, can match.
You were so close. This isn't about hispanics being pro-fascist.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Have you talked with Streetlight, by any chance? Are you at all familiar with the more militant side of the movement? If I remember correctly antifa has assassinated people and tried to commit terrorist acts.
It goes without saying that I condemn anyone punching journalists. Do I need to tell you this 1000 times? Quoting Kenosha Kid
Peaceful protests are fine, I condemn shouting down speakers in private venues and disruptions of public hearings.
I'd be totally fine with antifa if they just peacefully protested, but that's just not the reality.
There it is again. If an Antifa supporter who is a violent asshole with a gun shoots into a crowd, it is Antifa who has "assassinated" someone, despite the group having no centralised responsibility.
During the 2020 election, some Trump supporters protested the vote and shot and knives people. Are all Trump supporters responsible for this, or just the individuals who did it?
My sources are mostly interviews, and I know that Mark Bray has interviews with antifa members and he was able to get this access because he's a leftist and sympathetic to the movement. I've been meaning to get access to his book since it would be a great source of info for the sake of our discussion. No need for me to go to fox news for this one.
I think since we're never going to get actual statistics interviews are the best we can do. Ideally interviews with important, informed members.
Quoting fdrake
I have no problem with antifa in theory, my concern is tactics, tactics, tactics. And the fact that they may be a little overzealous in some cases. Oftentimes we're just dealing with ideas that relate to fascism so that creates a bit of a grey zone.
Quoting fdrake
Maybe we should ditch this game of ideological generalization then? We seem to be on a very different page. Your inspirations for antifascism seem to be Jewish partisans while mine are black-clad, weaponized young men who have murdered cops and obstruct ambulances trying tor reach hospitals. These aren't the "bad apples" either - street obstruction is a common tactic.
Quoting fdrake
I'm keeping an eye on it. If Trump somehow manages to stay in office we'll be in a very, very different place politically obviously. I expect him gone in a few weeks. No more.
Quoting fdrake
Quoting fdrake
Antifa and strong social/racial justice movements are going about it in a very tactically questionable way. I mean does it really make sense to you that a fascist is going to recant his views after getting punched? The fascist already thrives on violence.
Have you ever seen Scared Straight? They take a bunch of juveniles and send them prison so the prisoners can scare and intimidate them into being good. The program was shut down because I don't think it had any sort of positive effect on the kids. It also shows a complete lack of knowledge of a young person's psyche. What did they think would happen when you've got a 15 year old juvenile who's got a rough life and now he's got all these prisoners telling him that he's not tough enough to make it?
Come on.
It's the same with racists, you got to acclimate them slowly, don't bombard them with in-your-face anti-racism material. Introduce them to decent, socially well adjusted minorities. Show them a bit of personal support. Bond over some hobbies. Daryl Davis managed to convince over 200 klansmen to denounce and leave the klan through this approach. Proven results. We both want the same thing, we just disagree on how to best go about it.
There are plenty of antifa communes where they live and eat together and I'd suspect that at least some coordinate together. There is actually a group of people to investigate if antifa does something highly illegal like attempting to a terrorist act.
There are 70 million Trump supporters, plenty of them who are not tied to any group. If a Trump supporter is a terrorist and is tied to a group like the KKK then we can absolutely investigate that group and go after that group.
If there's no group attached I don't know what to tell you.
I’ve read the Doctrine of Fascism. The illiberal, collectivist and statist sentiments rendered it completely useless, even as a historical curiosity, and I immediately lost interest in anything related to it. What else can be said of Italian Fascism besides how it once manifested and quickly failed in Europe?
What exactly do you mean when you say "It's all symbolism. It affects the way people think about themselves and how they assess what's acceptable."?
In terms of when it's time for me personally to stand up and say something, well, personally I don't really go to protests. I'd probably just ignore the klan. I'd probably look them up and down since they're a rare sight here in Massachusetts and walk right on by. I'm really not one to attend protests and start yelling at other people because I don't like their views. I actually don't like dealing with people in large groups, I prefer dealing with individuals.
If you want to change a klansman's mind you're not gonna do it by debating him. his hatred is in his heart, it's personal. check out daryl davis, he's a black man who has befriended over 200 klansmen and got them to renounce the klan. it's a billion times better than punching them. that's how you gotta do it.
I’ve read What is Fascism by Mussolini, and Technique du Coup d’Etat by Malaparte, written when he was still a fascist. One thing you gotta give to Mussolini is a certain intelligence, a certain brilliance with words. Logical coherence and consistency were not his thing (Malaparte ended up calling him Monsieur Cameleon) but he had studied Hegel and others, and Fascism was in essence an attempted hegelian synthesis between socialism, nationalism and religion.
Mussolini could write, his rhetoric was powerful, a bit overdone for today’s taste, but it worked. Of course it is easy today to see that behind the glittering rhetoric hides a egotic, opportunistic mind, ready to use whatever argument that works for him. But back then many smart folks fall for him and his skillful way with words.
If Trump had been half as smart and energetic as Mussolini, the US would look very different today... in a bad way I mean. Luckily, Trump was more of a douche than a Duce.
There are plenty of autonomous groups generally. The question was: are all or even one of those groups responsible for what one individual does? Your answer seems to be, yes: all of Antifa is responsible for what one Antifa individual does. The next question is: are all Trump supporters responsible for what one Trump supporter does? Your answer is no, it's the fault of the individual.
This is another of the hypocrisies one sees endemic in right-wing thought. If it was one of our guys, that's just him, but if it's one of their guys it's all of them. This is, for instance, the logic of racism: a white guy commits a crime, and he's bad; a black guy commits a crime and blacks are bad.
The point I'm trying to make is that there's a historical continuity between the antifascist actors I'm referring to and the ones which are currently vilified.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
We could be talking about how the majority of the time antifascist actors are not violent towards people except in self defence. But I think the more interesting discussion is about violence as a political strategy; the police are violent all the time, that's how they work.
So we should distinguish between antifascist actors at protests as a check against violent actors (and police!) and violent antifascist tactics outside of the protest. Self defence against police action like this excerpt from an antifascist actor at Red Lion Square:
From an act like tailing a man who was writing antisemitic slogans and threats over houses of Jewish Londoners home then beating the shit out of them with the threat (paraphrased) "If the slogans come back, we do" - the slogans did not come back. The affected community went to the police before this, the police said (paraphrased) "Your lot aren't liked around here" and refused to act.
When that community organised with antifascist groups - after the police refused to do anything, mind -,they effectively made their own police force to stop hate crimes being committed against them which the police were indifferent to. And it worked. The British fascists stopped bullying that neighbourhood.
Have I ever been scared straight? No, but I have been stopped from doing things because I was afraid of the consequences. And the latter is the point. So: I don't think education is the purpose of intimidation and fear strategies like that. It's not for the person victimised by fear and intimidation, it's to make them afraid and to stop doing whatever they're doing. That was an attempt to control, through fear, someone who's committing hate crimes, or otherwise legitimising violence, the police either cannot or will not intervene in to prevent or stop.
It's very prescient to remind ourselves of how Oswald Mosley vilified the antifascist actors back then - he defended what he did under free speech.
An organisation with the purposes of populist race baiting, encouraging and committing hate crimes, defending its own aggression and racism through freedom of speech. Of course, if someone defends someone's right to say something, you never have to defend what they say!
This is a strategic weakness of liberal democracy, as noted by Schmitt. Free speech absolutism provides absolutely no defence against bad faith and subversive actors from within the system, in fact all that is needed to be done to get people on the side of bad faith actors is for them to claim they are being silenced. So long as liberal democracy is willing to hold free speech to such high regard it risks facing the bad conclusion of the paradox of tolerance; erosion of the very norms that were protected. So long as people side with these bad faith actors, antifascist action will be required as a counterbalance to defend liberal norms. An unglamorous job, as everyone hates them for it.
Silence keeps people down, whether it's victims of sexual molestation or assault, racial discrimination, or economic hardship.
So even if marching and protesting does nothing to change the system, it helps oppressed people to lift that veil of silence.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I think this might be why you have so little sympathy for antifa. You haven't imagined a point where you would become a ”thug” to stand against injustice.
For whatever reason, I've thought a lot about it, about how that kind of volatility is uncontrollable once it starts, how it can end up hurting innocent bystanders, how it becomes a reason to live for some people, but how there comes a point when there's no other way.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Again, you're thinking about how it affects the klan. I'm thinking about how their rhetoric affects kids.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
There's a difference between second degree and first degree crimes that's really important here. Did the crime have prior planning or not? If yes, we investigate the group behind the crime if there is one.
I don’t think it’s the case that one is “on the side of bad faith actors” when defending their right to speak, though guilt by association is almost inevitable (see Chomsky and the Faurisson affair, for instance). One can defend a person’s right to speak without endorsing any of their views.
But more, the paradox of intolerance is that we should not tolerate the intolerant, those that refuse to listen to argument and thus resort to bigotry and violence, for instance the latest iteration of American Antifa. When I am unable to distinguish this species of "antifascist action" from violent bigotry, I must oppose it, with violence if necessary.
So if an Antifa member shot randomly into a crowd of fascists, Antifa are in the clear?
And therefore one member's personal decision to kill someone is precisely what makes it not his personal responsibility?
Far-right people really will say absolutely anything m
In America, there used to be a right to go to rallies and protests without outside interference from the government or violent mobs. Given that they routinely suppress this human right, I'm surprised Antifa didn't get worse.
Any crime gets investigated, that's just how it is. Let the police do their work and draw their conclusions. I don't get why this is so complicated.
Look into the anti-mob police cases of the 1980s in New York - organizations can be held responsible for the behavior of their members.
I judge groups as they are now. To me this would be like judging the modern American military like the one it was in WWII.
Quoting fdrake
If the police or authorities absolutely refuse to cooperate or help in any manner - then yes, it's on you. In America in 2020 we can absolutely count on our police to go after anti-semitic hate crimes. Vigilante groups are an absolute last resort and I'm sure you see how things can get out of hand very quickly when you have angry citizens enforcing justice. But yes, when the authorities are either complicit or unhelpful in, say, stopping hate crimes then this type of vigilante action becomes more plausible.
Quoting fdrake
It can work, but it's not the ideal method. Maybe the anti-semitic thug just learns to prey on weaker communities. It's a last resort. I'm sure you and I must both agree that taking the law into your own hands is a last resort.
Quoting fdrake
I'm glad you mention Schmitt here. In my view Schmitt is probably one of the most if not the most persuasive fascist thinker out there. He's an unabashed fascist, no question there. It would seem to me that if we're serious about nipping fascism in the bud then we should ban his works, full stop. If someone seriously engages Schmitt he'll likely feel the pull of fascism. Whenever you seriously engage a thinker they'll pull you into their world for a bit.
After Schmitt I'd also likely go after Nietzsche. Maybe not the entirety of Nietzsche, sure, but definitely certain parts lend themselves to fascist thought. Where exactly do we draw the line? That's a damn good question. But I guess the more important one would be who makes the decision.
We can start going after bands, too, like Rammstein and other heavy metal bands who clearly have fascist undertones and aesthetics. We'll really have quite the work cut out ahead of us. I never read Heideggar but he might be gone too. We'd have to revise the entire concept of a liberal arts education while we're at it.
Sure, same with the KKK and neo-Nazis. That's because the MO of the entire organisation is violently criminal. Even in the absence of a centralised organisation, neo-Nazis have central principles that are abominable.
The same is not true of Trump supporters or Antifa. Trump supporters might be immoral in different ways, and Trump himself is certainly criminal and abominable, but one cannot characterise Trump supporters generally as violent criminals seeking to halt democracy, even if a LOT of them chose to behave that way. Nor can you say Trump supporters generally thump journalists, even though Trump himself egged them on.
Likewise Antifa does not have a central organising structure or principle responsible for the killing of fascists or thumping of journalists. It does not even share with Trump a sentiment that such things are ends. A willingness to meet fascist violence is obviously a central tenet, but that only makes the disingenuous identification of the response as the criminal element more pronounced as bias and propaganda.
What would count as sufficient evidence that authorities are "either complicit or unhelpful in stopping hatecrimes"?
It comes down to how close these people are with their respective communities. If people are all living and eating and sleeping together, then that community is going to be under investigation and I don't care whether its a bird loving community. Uniforms are a big indicator. The closer people are with that group the more police should investigate, and investigation does not mean guilt.
I don't even know if the proclaimed MO of the organization is all that relevant. A hippie commune might proclaimed peace, love, and harmony but if they're out slaughtering celebrities they're getting investigated, and that extends beyond the actual perpetrators. Charlie Manson didn't kill anyone and he wasn't at the crime scene.
I'm fine with neighborhood watches. Communities are allowed to defend themselves, but I think its a poor tactical decision to frame a neighborhood watch specifically as an antifascist defense force. It'll have the effect of alienating a portion of the population that isn't particularly political and may be a little confused or alarmed by the ideological bent of their neighborhood watch. Just call it a general neighborhood watch, cast a wide net, and defend your community from whatever crime there is. Everyone can get on board with neighborhood safety, you're going to confuse people when you introduce ideology, especially if this new neighborhood watch is dressed in all black with black masks. Appearance matters.
What would sufficient evidence that police are unable or unwilling to do anything to help, again? Here's an excerpt from Dave Hann's book about the collaboration between neighbourhoods and the antifascist organisation the Anti Nazi League (ANL). NF is the fascist group the National Front. This is from 1978-1979 in the UK:
The Bangladeshi community knew that the police would not stop the NF from stampeding through their neighbourhood, destroying property, assaulting people. So community members contacted the antifascist org to send militants prepared to counterdemonstrate, block the advance of the NF through the neighbourhood, and fight if need be. Not enough showed up due to the NF "demonstration" being tactically timed during another ANL event elsewhere, and predictably the NF committed acts of racist violence and property destruction.
The "neighbourhood watch" wasn't enough, the police didn't care to impede the publicly announced demonstration, sectarian violence ensued because the "last resort" of the ANL weren't there in enough numbers. How would you expect a neighbourhood watch to defend against an organised militia when the police violently protect that militia's right to march through the neighbourhood due to "absolute free speech"?
But Antifa are not that sort of community. There may exist communities of some Antifa members who do so, and some of those might be systematically violent and should be judged as such. But you're not trying to vilify such communities, should they exist (never heard of one) but a much larger group of people connected by a couple of common, non-violent interests. The aforementioned activist scrubbing Swastikas off walls is, by your logic, morally culpable for a violent individual she has never heard of shooting a violent fascist.
As I said, this is the logic of racism.
There are also some antifa communes who probably fall somewhere in the middle between non-violence and violence, so again, we investigate the community when the individual commits the crime.
From a broader, ideological standpoint I consider the American antifascist movement quite suspect and video footage and journalism repeatedly reinforces my initial impression. I would not use the word "non-violent" to describe them or their ideology.
EDIT: If we took antifascism to its logical conclusion then we're talking about mass censorship and places certain individuals in charge of managing and determining that censorship. It is a deeply un-American ideal in practice.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
No, we judge people as individuals. If some dresses in all black and marches alongside antifa that's them choosing to associate themselves with that community.
But how do we know that larger numbers of ANL would have stopped the violence? This is a minor point though, because in the situation you describe it is clear that the community needed to call in the ANL as a last resort and I don't have any issue with that.
But the situation in America is basically this one but reversed: You have left-wing protesters destroying stores and "right wing" (really, anti-government boogaloes, not actual fascists) called in or requested to protect small business. I'm against allowing any group to destroy property, left or right.
Ideally the neighborhood watch wouldn't have to defend anything because a strong police presence would deter violence. I don't know about British law but in America you're allowed to have these types of demonstrations as long as they stay peaceful.
But that's precisely what you're not doing when you judge a great many people for criminal activity they are not responsible for.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Well, we have to identify what ideological sources Antifa members generally use to derive their ideology. Pointing at extreme examples of individuals behaving monstrously is fallacious unless we have reason to believe that their membership of the organisation was a determining factor.
The KKK and neo-Nazis are unequivocally violent groups because they are founded on the idea of eliminating ethnic minorities altogether. Antifa is founded on the idea of eliminating not a physical characteristic but a culture, one that is violent and hateful. You've gone back to your abandoned first amendment argument here:
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
You could say this about laws. If we take paedophile laws to their logical conclusion, paedophilia would be eliminated, and with it the ability to voice pro-paedophilia propaganda. But paedophilia is a crime, as is racial violence against ethnic minorities, and it's quite right to stamp it out. If that leaves no one left to express in it's favour, so much the better.
Exactly. Only Antifa can do that, because they are more equal than every other voice.
You realize the KKK often isn't actually physical violent very often, right? Obviously their belief system is straight up toxic and it would explain the actions behind the groups act, but the KKK could also use this argument "oh only bad klansmen commit those acts, we, the organization, do not approve of it!" That's the justification they'll use. They're only sporadically violent, it's not their everyday business.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Anti-pedophile laws are just rules - no sex with minors. I don't see the "oh well if we extend that logic then..." argument. Voicing pro-pedophilia arguments, while gross, is defending under the first amendment. If we were to outlaw pedophiles (i.e. arresting anyone attracted to children) then we're in a completely different area philosophically. It doesn't follow from anti-pedophile laws (which is really just a prohibition) that anyone who feels sexual attraction to children should be arrested.
If you are serious about antifascism then you are talking about mass censorship, just admit it already. Nothing wrong with being about honest about the implications of ones views.
You're also talking about destroying a liberal arts education and not reading about certain thinkers, or atleast not allowing students to engage with thinkers like Hobbes.
And we know that is bullshit because of the long, violent, hateful history of the Klan. The raison d'etre of the KKK is violence oppression of black Americans. You'd have to be an especially ignorant person to think it was about fancy dress but, yes, such a person would be exempt.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Because your argument is that by opposing fascism, we're opposing the right of the fascist to express fascist views. That's trivially true of opposing anything. You can want for something to not exist and yet still express itself.
The raison d'etre of the KKK is white supremacy, not the violent oppression of blacks. Violence happens but it's not a daily thing, you're treating it like it's a daily thing when it's not. A Klan speaker could easily say that they only use violence as a last resort.
Of course this is not me justifying them, just stating the facts. Especially in 2020. A hate group can still be a hate group but not use violence all the time.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
No it is not trivially true. I oppose fascism, of course, but I don't believe in banning fascist literature or not allowing them to speak.
Do you think I'm pro-Nazi because I don't believe in banning Mein Kampf? So not being massively pro-censorship makes me basically pro-Nazi? Ok, not got it.
I'm sure they'd appreciate your generous characterisation. So if the criterion is *daily* violence, there are presumably no violent organisations. Daily violence wasn't among your reasons for characterising Antifa as violence, nor could it be.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
The logical conclusion of anti-fascism is the end of fascism, meaning no fascists to spout fascist ideas. It is illogical to claim you wish fascism to end but fascist ideas to be freely espoused.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
No, I think you're pro-fascist because you consistently defend fascists for things you condemn anti-fascists for.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Do you agree with this too?
"The logical conclusion of anti-capitalism is the end of capitalism, meaning no [believers in the capitalist system] to spout capitalist ideas."
You're an anti-capitalist, right?
So you're willing to agree that antifascist actions can be necessary, when they are a "last resort", what is sufficient evidence that the situation is a "last resort"? What made you believe the example that I gave you was a last resort when there was notable police presence at the demonstration?
You can be an anti-fascist without advocate for banning all fascist expression. Banning everything just results in fascism going underground and creates a society where there's less transparency and honesty because people know they can't say certain things.
But just keep banning ideas you don't like: fascism, capitalism, maybe throw some religions in there, eh? Hell, even your allies probably have views and opinions that you don't like even they mostly agree with you - you can't let those stay, they'd be poison to the movement.
Chomsky made this point quite brilliantly in regards to Holocaust denial and anti-fascism. You shouldn’t try to suppress the fascist’s speech, you should try to win the argument.
Hold up, Chomsky is supporting actually engaging fascists in discussion? He must be a fascist himself, probably a Nazi. /s
Really insightful answer by Chomsky, by the way. I never thought I'd be agreeing with him but you learn something new everyday.
What is the logical conclusion of anti-fascism?
What is, democracy?
Its a jeopardy-like answer to a jeopardy-like question.
No more fascism, but you're not banning people from thinking it (because no one can) you're only sending the discourse underground. We don't have a holocaust denial problem here in the US and everyone just ignores those people. In Europe it's a bigger deal and holocaust deniers get much more coverage because they're doing something illegal and it gets blown up into this big thing. It's a little silly to think you can just ban it and it goes away; how has banning done when it comes to alcohol and drugs?
And what's wrong with it being illegal in human made democratic laws if fascism is indeed something bad ... that inevitably leads into lands of the atrocious?
Tolerance for those who are intolerant can only lead to intolerance, period.
I get the need to talk to others. But this can only have any meaningful effect/affect when the other is of an open mind and is listening. Otherwise, it becomes an issue of fending off offensive violence with defensive violence.
Read the context or shush.
Is that what you think the aims of anti-fascism are? Just to drive fascism underground?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Considering that you haven’t read Heideggar why then do you think he should be gone.
That’s an odd statement in a discussion about Fascism.
The "end" of anti-fascism is for there to be no more believers in fascism, but by outright banning fascism you're just driving it underground so that whenever it does resurface it becomes a bigger thing.
Read again the context of what I was saying. I wasn't saying we need to ban Heideggar, I was saying that if we established a governmental committee to ban anything related to fascism they could very well decide to ban Heideggar or anything even remotely related to fascism.
Right, so this will leave no-one to express fascist ideas. And that's the extent to which anti-fascism censors fascism. No one is invading Klan meetings on private property. If fascists deface property with vile fascist slogans, they get cleaned up. If fascists have public matches, anti-fascists march against them. If fascists respond violently, they are met with violence.
Tbh I think your argument was lost when you described Antifa as systematically violent but the KKK not. That's so divorced from reality and betrays such a bias toward violent right-wing racist murderers as to make your position indefensible.
Blushingly, point taken.
You're just going to have to go by the specific situation and ask yourself questions like how many right-wingers we're expecting to show up, do the right wingers have a history of violence, what is the police presence like, how about the presence of counter-protesters who may provide a "check" but not be antifa themselves? here in boston we had a right wing rally back in 2017 where like 50 right-wingers showed up and tens of thousands of counter-protesters with a strong police presence, do we really need to call in antifa here?
It would be absurd to lay down any absolute philosophical principle for when to call in armed, antifascist groups.
By the way, if you need any more proof that antifa is not fundamentally in the liberal tradition check out my discussion with Kenosha kid. It's just really an interesting example of how a liberal like myself perceives politics as opposed to Kenosha who basically perceives politics as war with the goal of absolutely destroying the opposition permanently. I can't help but notice the frequency of this thought within antifa/the far left.
No, again, the fascists will just be driven underground, like drug use in the war on drugs or alcohol during prohibition.
Well thanks for the post-mortem, I'll try to do better next time, Kenosha. This discussion has been enlightening for me because it's very apparent that you basically consider the enterprise of politics as basically a war of all against all with the end goal of absolutely annihilating the opposition. This actually puts you in good company with thinkers like Hobbes and Schmitt, in complete opposition to the democratic liberal tradition of course. Good discussion.
You can engage them with giving them a platform that gives them the appearance of legitimacy. Giving them that platform injures society because of what it perpetuates in both sides.
Obviously I believe in engagement. I'm engaging you (trying to anyway), but I also recognize when engagement is dangerous. I think you do too, right?
So what are we arguing about?
Quoting frank
Sure it's dangerous if they pull out a knife...
Drawing a line, I guess.
We don't even have to personally engage fascists, in fact I usually don't because it's unproductive. What antifa wants is to ban any expression of it including books or blog posts.
They don't have the power to do that, but they're free to suggest it. :razz:
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
What kind of fascist did you talk to? Just curious.
yeah it's all fun and games as long as they're not in power.
Quoting frank
haha, as a rule I don't really engage with actual fascists but I gotta say the discussion with kenosha kid was telling. I don't mean to start any beef here but I can't help but notice the similarities between that thinking and some of the fascist thinkers I've read.
Said the Jewish guy in Dachau.
I'm not asking for absolutes. I'm asking you to detail what convinced you antifa was necessary in the historical example I gave you. What I'm hoping for is a concrete and in context response, we can see later if there's any justifying principles for your approval of antifascist action in this context. I don't want to talk about the supposed ideology of antifa or whatever yet, I wanna talk about under what conditions antifascists turning up at a protest prepared for violence in self defence or in defence of others is justifiable.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Some extra detail about the example I gave:
In this case it was known beforehand that organised counterprotesters+local community members would be greatly outnumbered by the fascist demonstrators.
The people going to the demonstration in the Bangladeshi neighbourhood did have a history of violence.
In context it looked as if there were enough police to secure the fascist demonstration while they were one block, but there was not enough to police its predicted after effects; much of the violence occurred after the bulk of fascist thugs stopped sieg hailing as a contained unit and broke off into smaller groups which, intentionally, are harder for police to check. The police advantage comes from being relatively armed, relatively coordinated, and in position to guide/confine the demonstration.
In case that isn't clear: say there's 50 police and 500 protesters and all protesters are in one block, the organised efforts of the police act as a force multiplier - they control the movement of the 500 protesters.
Let's say the 500 protesters break up into connected streets in groups of 50, now you've got to expect 5 police officers to manage 50 people who are moving outside of the police's crowd management strategy. The police are still relatively armed, but they're out of position and can't put on a coordinated defence since they're reacting to the movements of the sieg hailing loonies.
In practice, the police could not ensure oversight of all the splintering groups over the surrounding neighbourhoods. Not only did the group of 50-60 thugs splinter off that way, they did so without any officers there.
And just to note; antifascist militants rarely turn up armed. That tends to land them in jail or endanger them needlessly.
I think it's not instructive to think about the ideology of antifa and broader questions of free speech in the same breath as whether militant antifascist strategy is fine in any normal[hide=*] (yes, violent racists demonstrating violently is normal, and yes that is a travesty and indictment on our political systems )[/hide] political context. It seems to me you believe it was fine in this case, why?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Sorry, I didn’t pick up the tone. I was actually a bit confused on the basis of other posts you’d made.
So now you're back to saying the ideal of anti-fascism (which is the point in hand) is to drive fascism underground. The right will just say anything, as I've pointed out before. They're shameless.
First, thanks for the detailed historical write up. I enjoyed learning about this event from your descriptions.
I would say in that instance it was acceptable to call in a militant leftist group as a last resort given that it's reasonable to believe that the community may be in danger from a group with a history of violence, plus the fact that the police can't be entirely relied upon to maintain safety.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
No, I'm saying the actual policy of banning fascist speech & expression drives fascism underground. You can't ban fascist thought you can only ban fascist speech and expression.
And as we've already agreed, Antifa is not a reformist organisation. They are not trying to ban anything.
Nobody is against cleaning up swastikas from building, but you can't go around punching fascists simply for speaking, sorry.
One would have to be a real crackpot to hand over the reins to a group like US Antifa on "how to combat fascism". I don't even trust them to define it. Sadly, I think it is easy to argue that Antifa has greatly diminished the image of anti-fascist rhetoric and thinking. If the US ever does see a rise in fascism then maybe it is because people came to see anti-fascism as radical leftists with masks who protest right-wing politics thus they stop treating the topic with the same emphasis. The word fascism has lost a great deal of its meaning, an already hard-to-understand idea and now it's even more difficult for the average westerner to understand and identify.
When someone like Trump does act out dangerously fascistic behaviour, what happens when he's called out on it? It's a mix of the "boy who cried wolf" and the watered-down definition of fascism, the way it's been used politically to just smear, it's not going to be taken seriously. Antifa has literally become a convenient scapegoat for Trump, how can any reasonable person take them seriously? What have they achieved? Nothing but a negative PR campaign for their own cause.
As opposed to fascism being driven underground or "banned" it's better that everyone is aware of what it is and knows why it's a bad alternative. That being said, many actual fascist policies are against the law and much of what we saw in the rise of fascism of the 1930s would not be remotely legal.
Yeah.
One thing I gleaned from my discussion with Kenosha Kid was that he essentially views the enterprise of politics as nothing short of war, with the final objective to be to annihilate opposing ideas. I'd really love to trace the roots of this idea because I've heard it before. It reminds me Hobbes' idea of "a war of all against all" but I know the context doesn't quite match. In any case this is a very different from the democratic liberal tradition which views discourse and reconciliation as a normal part of politics.
Which does not mean that you can talk a fascist out of it, mind you. Any good ideologue lives in his own comfy mental prison, and he doesn't want to get out. You can't reach out to them by way of words. I've tried many times, not anymore.
If a fascist punches me, I'll punch him back. So yeah I can.
Duh, obviously.
Then there's no problem. Oh yeah, I forgot... Nazis and the Klan aren't violent.
One of these days I should just pick a random argument with you and misinterpret everything you say.
I'll respond with shameless inconsistency to avoid addressing your points.
Fascism is Not an Idea to Be Debated, It’s a Set of Actions to Fight (by Aleksandar Hemon on Literary Hub; Nov 1, 2018)
I'm guessing Hemon has read Umberto Eco.
Quoting paraphrasing Santayana