Bash the Nazi's

[roll]

I have notice on this site that the only answers to tackling problems arising from Nazism is through intimidation....but wouldn't it be far more productive to reason with them, and teach them the wrongs of what they're doing: Rehabilitation? Because, realistically, they're from a working class background; may have been lead to believe their ideas are correct.

[9]

cappiej?
But reasoning with a Nazi, really? I'm curious to know how many Nazis sign up on revleft because they are open to reason... wait, no I'm not.

[Lynx]

How do we deal with run-of-the-mill racists and bigots?
Would we allow 'unofficial' whites-only enclaves? By this, I mean places that are supposedly open to all, but whose residents are known to be hostile towards non-whites.

What would be the policy towards the Amish, or Menonite and Mormon communities?

[danyboy27]

useless topic, really. there is no chances whatsoever people will say that we need to reason with them, leftist cant even agree with eachother, and you want them to reason and talk with folks who have an ideology completly opposed to their?

are you mad?

[roll]

I am saying there is no need for militancy against the Nazi's.


If anyone can change from their evil deeds - why can't the neo-nazi's?

[h0m0revolutionary]

Because, realistically, they're from a working class background

Wrong.

[Dr Mindbender]

I am saying there is no need for militancy against the Nazi's.

it works thats all that matters.

Nazis are small and atomised. It is best to keep them that way and stop them spreading. What they think isnt important.



If anyone can change from their evil deeds - why can't the neo-nazi's?
who cares?

[9]

Look, this post would have some relevance in "real life" except that it doesn't because this is the internet, and furthermore, this is a forum for revolutionary leftist politics. Nazis don't come to revleft.com to be persuaded, I assure you. If they were open-minded, they wouldn't be Nazis to begin with. They come to be fuckwads, and they are treated accordingly. And why so many people apparently fail to make a distinction between 'respecting ideological differences' and tolerating fascist bigotry is frankly beyond me.

[Jack]

I am saying there is no need for militancy against the Nazi's.


If anyone can change from their evil deeds - why can't the neo-nazi's?

They've taken the lives of our comrades in Russia, starting in Germany and more recently in Russia. Any attack on a nazi is justified.

[Pogue]

We believe our community and workplace organising will undermine fascism. The militant approach is simply one of many tactics.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I still don't understand the fundamental position of violence towards Nazis, honestly. A lot of people spread false ideas and are unresponsive to intellectual debate. I don't see how "holding view X" makes us necessarily know a certain person cannot be reasonably debated.

If we take this line of thought, I don't see how we can stop at Nazis. I'm pretty sure you can convince a racist they're incorrect. Plenty of non-Nazis have killed individuals as the result of an ideology.

More importantly, attacking Nazis greatly damages the credibility of the leftist movement, as far as I can see. Most people I know aren't communists, but they all support the freedom of speech and association of Nazis.

Maybe it's legitimate. However, these people have lives that matter. If we can convince them without harming them, we cause less harm, overall, do we not? If it is legitimate to use violence, on what basis?

If we say "any group that is clearly wrong and promotes violence against those who don't deserve it should be harmed," what do we have? We'll have a group of liberals who, if they ever agree with us, will immediately throw communists in that category as violent and hateful.

I do not understand at all what engaging with Nazism accomplishes. Engaging with real opponents would involve debating liberals and conservatives. I fail to see what picking a fight with the littlest, stupidest, and ugliest kid on the playground does for a movement that greatly needs to reestablish its credibility. I just don't.

[Pogue]

I still don't understand the fundamental position of violence towards Nazis, honestly. A lot of people spread false ideas and are unresponsive to intellectual debate. I don't see how "holding view X" makes us necessarily know a certain person cannot be reasonably debated.

If we take this line of thought, I don't see how we can stop at Nazis. I'm pretty sure you can convince a racist they're incorrect. Plenty of non-Nazis have killed individuals as the result of an ideology.

More importantly, attacking Nazis greatly damages the credibility of the leftist movement, as far as I can see. Most people I know aren't communists, but they all support the freedom of speech and association of Nazis.

Maybe it's legitimate. However, these people have lives that matter. If we can convince them without harming them, we cause less harm, overall, do we not? If it is legitimate to use violence, on what basis?

If we say "any group that is clearly wrong and promotes violence against those who don't deserve it should be harmed," what do we have? We'll have a group of liberals who, if they ever agree with us, will immediately throw communists in that category as violent and hateful.

I do not understand at all what engaging with Nazism accomplishes. Engaging with real opponents would involve debating liberals and conservatives. I fail to see what picking a fight with the littlest, stupidest, and ugliest kid on the playground does for a movement that greatly needs to reestablish its credibility. I just don't.

Its about physical opposition to an aggressive and dangerous movement which has, does and will use physical force against us. As I said, its one of many tactics.

[Misanthrope]

Nazis and fascists don't and won't discuss their ideology on an intellectual level. It always resorts to insults and slander. I'd rather discuss politics with my dog.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

But why attack a Neo-Nazi group in, say, America? A lot of people are always violent towards others in "some" form.

I don't see why the general attitude on the forum seems to be that if I went outside, found a Neo-Nazi, and beat the shit out of them, it would somehow be a good thing. It seems like it's more of a "it's hip to beat idiots up" kind of thing.

An increase in the numbers of any ideology the opposes communism, Nazism, conservatism, is a threat to the safety of people. It's rather arbitrary to pick and choose at "fascism and nazism." If I know an ignorant conservative, why can't I go attack them?

If I went out and attacked a fascist or disrupted a fascist rally, what exactly is it I accomplished? Do I have to filter out the "bad information" so the "idiotic" public doesn't get manipulated. I don't think their that stupid. If anything, they'll sympathize with the Nazis for being attacked.

[Pogue]

But why attack a Neo-Nazi group in, say, America? A lot of people are always violent towards others in "some" form.

I don't see why the general attitude on the forum seems to be that if I went outside, found a Neo-Nazi, and beat the shit out of them, it would somehow be a good thing. It seems like it's more of a "it's hip to beat idiots up" kind of thing.

An increase in the numbers of any ideology the opposes communism, Nazism, conservatism, is a threat to the safety of people. It's rather arbitrary to pick and choose at "fascism and nazism." If I know an ignorant conservative, why can't I go attack them?

If I went out and attacked a fascist or disrupted a fascist rally, what exactly is it I accomplished? Do I have to filter out the "bad information" so the "idiotic" public doesn't get manipulated. I don't think their that stupid. If anything, they'll sympathize with the Nazis for being attacked.

Attacking one person would acheive very little. But preventing whole organisations from being able to freely organise through physical confrontation has been proven to be effective.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Attacking one person would acheive very little. But preventing whole organisations from being able to freely organise through physical confrontation has been proven to be effective.

If we put this into a utilitarian argument, here is what I'd suggest:

Pro:

1. Nazis prevented from spreading their ideas.
2. The reputation of communists is increased.
3. A potential long-term increase in Nazism is prevented.
4. A greater principle of justified censorship as acceptable becomes available for use.

Con:

1. Nazis' are harmed. Harm is neutral.
2. The reputation of communists is decreased.
3. A potential loss of truth. Mill's argument that Nazism could be true. (Very low probability).
4. A greater principle of justified censorship as acceptable becomes available for use.
5. Nazis respond violently when they otherwise would've done nothing.

***

In the absence of a more definitive argument, I'll side in opposition to violence, typically. What makes you think the issues play out in favor of your conclusion? Am I missing something?

You could be right. In fact, I think it's great if you are. Everyone has a certain retributive character that wants to see Nazism beaten down with whatever means necessary. I just can't jump to conclusions simply because they play to my natural sympathies.

Can you interpret the variables in a way that favors action? Am I missing something important here?

Thanks

[danyboy27]

Attacking one person would acheive very little. But preventing whole organisations from being able to freely organise through physical confrontation has been proven to be effective.

i am not sure attacking nazi will actually stop them from beating migrants or burn down cynagogues, on the other hand, if we can show to them we are more numerous and in control of ourselves, they might actually back the fuck off.

i go and look in the antifa section now and then, and i can read that some people take great pride into bashing skinhead and other withe supremacist in england, surprisingly, i dont really see the BMP loosing ground beccause of that.

the real target isnt those assoles, yes, we should find way to defend communities against those groups, but the real threat come from the people in suits getting support from the pissed workers.

i dont say we should attack BMP member, but our efforts should be concentrated at them, undermining their effort to get the workers voting for them, and by bashing fascist in an offensive way, all we do is to enforce the thinking people have for the left, that all leftist are rude people not shy of beating up folks who dont think like them.

[StalinFanboy]

British Mationalist Party?



I simply don't care about White supremacists. Why should I? Open mindedness toward fascism is what led to the holocaust. NO THANKS!

[Stand Your Ground]

White Supremacists can't be reasoned with, they're brain washed to believe they are better than everyone else. No one can show them they're wrong. As for using intimidation/violence towards them, as far as I'm concerned they deserve it.

[danyboy27]

White Supremacists can't be reasoned with, they're brain washed to believe they are better than everyone else. No one can show them they're wrong. As for using intimidation/violence towards them, as far as I'm concerned they deserve it.

well, some leftist are like that too.

[Bud Struggle]

well, some leftist are like that too.

Stalin kiddies! :D

[danyboy27]

Stalin kiddies! :D

well, not specificly but ya some of them.
anyway generalisation is never good so lets try not to start a stalin debate.

basicly, its relatively hard to reasonate with an extremist period.

dosnt matter if the extremist in question is a capitalist, a communist or a religious fundamentalist.

[Decolonize The Left]

If we put this into a utilitarian argument, here is what I'd suggest:

Pro:

1. Nazis prevented from spreading their ideas.
2. The reputation of communists is increased.
3. A potential long-term increase in Nazism is prevented.
4. A greater principle of justified censorship as acceptable becomes available for use.

Ok..


Con:

1. Nazis' are harmed. Harm is neutral.

Wrong. In the case of fascists, harm is good. An injured fascist is a fascist less likely to engage in fascist activity.


2. The reputation of communists is decreased.

Interesting point given that in "Pro" you stated the opposite. Only one can be the case in a given action - unless you mean to say that depending upon the leanings of a certain individual, they will view militant antifascist action as either good or bad. If this is the case then the point is moot.


3. A potential loss of truth. Mill's argument that Nazism could be true. (Very low probability).

This is terribly silly. "Loss of truth?" I think not - truth as nothing to do with antifascism what-so-ever. Fascists are bigots and bent on supremacy of one race over all others. We are speaking about the lives of people, not truth.


4. A greater principle of justified censorship as acceptable becomes available for use.

Correct - I see no reason why this is negative. Fascists ought to be censored. There is no such thing as natural rights, or freedom of speech, or anything of the sort.


5. Nazis respond violently when they otherwise would've done nothing.

Incorrect. Nazis are rarely "doing nothing." In fact, a Nazi who walks into a restaurant or bar while engaging with no one is in fact doing something. Simply by sharing space with those who the Nazi considers to be 'lesser' and 'inferior' due to skin color, sexual preference, etc... the Nazi is causing discomfort and pressure.

This aside, Nazis are often pro-active in their small communities.

***


In the absence of a more definitive argument, I'll side in opposition to violence, typically. What makes you think the issues play out in favor of your conclusion? Am I missing something?

Yes. You are missing the fact that Nazis hate your guts and would kill you if the opportunity presented itself and they could escape retribution. With this in mind, and when you consider that they hold a blatantly bigoted and discriminatory ideology, I see no reason why they ought be given quarter under any circumstances.

- August

[danyboy27]

i dont think beating down fascist will actually diminish their number, i mean, socialist worldwide have been hardly repressed by baton and riot squad, and they are still growing.

same goes for religious fanatics, if a man have some kind of faith for something, beating him down wont do the trick.

hey, hitler killed over 6 million jews and they have a fucking country now!

the allies together kicked the shit out of nazi germany and yet, nazi still persist.

an ideikigy is really hard to destroy, repression itself dosnt work unless its extensive and brutal, and even with that there is no guarante whatsoever that its gonna work out.

[Stand Your Ground]

well, some leftist are like that too.
Yeah I suppose so, but they don't want genocide like Nazis do.

[danyboy27]

Yeah I suppose so, but they don't want genocide like Nazis do.

well, i am not so sure about that.

i have met some people on that forum who said that if we had to kill a fews milllion innocents to live in an egualitarian society, it would be worth it.

i dont think all leftist are like that but well, that the essence of extremism, a minority of harcode people making the majority look bad.

do you think all muslim want innocent people being killed by a carbomb? of course not! but well, a fews creazy wacko actually believe that its a good thing and are doing it with passion.

[Stand Your Ground]

well, i am not so sure about that.

i have met some people on that forum who said that if we had to kill a fews milllion innocents to live in an egualitarian society, it would be worth it.

i dont think all leftist are like that but well, that the essence of extremism, a minority of harcode people making the majority look bad.

do you think all muslim want innocent people being killed by a carbomb? of course not! but well, a fews creazy wacko actually believe that its a good thing and are doing it with passion.
No innocents should ever be killed.

[danyboy27]

No innocents should ever be killed.

the thing is, the definition of what an innocent is vary from a group to another.

hey, some peopl think we should execute the whole royal family, children included so there would be no risk of comeback.

[Radical]

All Nazis pose a threat to the Revolution and to the saftey of humanity.

Though we should try to educate people, we must also be ready to execute people.

[Stand Your Ground]

All Nazis pose a threat to the Revolution and to the saftey of humanity.

Though we should try to educate people, we must also be ready to execute people.
Agreed.

[Bud Struggle]

Agreed.

Then what's the difference between you guys? You both are killers for your ideology.

[Stand Your Ground]

Then what's the difference between you guys? You both are killers for your ideology.
'All Nazis pose a threat to the Revolution and to the saftey of humanity.'

That^

[danyboy27]

Though we should try to educate people, we must also be ready to execute people.

even if they dont Physicly attack other peoples?

you would actually kill someone or order it beccause they dont think like you?

[Radical]

even if they dont Physicly attack other peoples?

you would actually kill someone or order it beccause they dont think like you?

When did I say that genius?

I said we must be "ready"

[danyboy27]

When did I say that genius?

I said we must be "ready"

well then please clarify what do you mean by being ready to execute people.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I am saying there is no need for militancy against the Nazi's.


If anyone can change from their evil deeds - why can't the neo-nazi's?

Can people with bigoted or bad ideas be changed - certainly! It happens all the time (especially in times of class and social struggle) and we are counting on it if we want a real revolution to win!

NAZIs and fascists are different - they are organized racists and are organized on the basis of preventing radicals, workers, and oppressed groups from winning power, strikes, or even reforms - or even feeling comfortable walking around their city without fear of being beaten or jumped for their nationality/race/politics/religion/sexuality.

I don't think radicals only struggle against fascists on the street-level, radical also fight the ideological fight against fascist ideas like nationalism, social-darwinism, eugenics, bell-curve type racism, claims of "reverse discrimination" and attacks on immigrants or other oppressed groups.

The reason I think we also need to protest them in the street is because it's not like NAZIs hold their meetings so they can be a talk-shop. The march in cities to INTIMIDATE the residents there. It's not abstract, the NAZIS will always have their hidden meetings and stuff, no one is saying we should spend out time figureing out what houses they live in and bringing it to them there! We need to oppose them when they have public functions so that people know that it's not alright to be an organized anti-semite and march through a Jewish part of town yelling "Zig Heil" - that's not free-speech, that's terrorism! Buring a cross in a field near a road where black residents will no doubt see it the next day or on the news - or painting a swashtica on a gay-bar - aren't political expressions like putting up a peace sign or something, it's to terrorize and intimidate all black people or all gaypeople and even other people who might want to speak out against racism or homophobia.

[Radical]

well then please clarify what do you mean by being ready to execute people.

Exactly what it says - "Though we should try to educate people, we must also be ready to execute people."

[danyboy27]

Exactly what it says - "Though we should try to educate people, we must also be ready to execute people."

is it possible to me more clear in your explanation?

so far it sound like: well, we gonna try to convert them and if it dosnt work we will just kill them.

that how i perceive it: if people dont think like us, fuck them, a bullet in the brain.

then again sorry for my misunderstanding but you dont give me much information to work with

[Radical]

is it possible to me more clear in your explanation?

so far it sound like: well, we gonna try to convert them and if it dosnt work we will just kill them.

that how i perceive it: if people dont think like us, fuck them, a bullet in the brain.

then again sorry for my misunderstanding but you dont give me much information to work with

I'm saying, we must be ready to commit executions to those that pose a serious threat to the saftey of humanity. The Revolution must be guaranteed. In that said, I do not believe Revolution here in the UK will be won without force. How else do we overthrow a Capitalist regime refusing to give-up arms without having to commit acts of war?

I do not condone the murder of innocent civilians. However we all have our own opinion of whats innocent and whats not. I do not consider militant Nazis and Fascists innocent.

Long live the Revolution!

[danyboy27]

I'm saying, we must be ready to commit executions to those that pose a serious threat to the saftey of humanity. The Revolution must be guaranteed. In that said, I do not believe Revolution here in the UK will be won without force. How else do we overthrow a Capitalist regime refusing to give-up arms without having to commit acts of war?

I do not condone the murder of innocent civilians. However we all have our opinion of whats innocent and whats not. I do not consider militant Nazis and Fascists innocent.

Long live the Revolution!

tanks but i would like to have a little more precision.
i dont quite know how you define a threat to the safety to humanity, this sentence have been used by a lot of peoples before.

if you mean, people running around commiting execution, fine.
if you mean people preaching their ideology, in my book its not fine.

killing people because they hold certain values is like believing that people are too stupid to not believe in those absurds ideas.

[Radical]

tanks but i would like to have a little more precision.
i dont quite know how you define a threat to the safety to humanity, this sentence have been used by a lot of peoples before.

if you mean, people running around commiting execution, fine.
if you mean people preaching their ideology, in my book its not fine.

killing people because they hold certain values is like believing that people are too stupid to not believe in those absurds ideas.

In times of war and revolution, people openly preaching their oppressive views in public must be resisted with physical force. Consistantly allowing Nazis, Fascists and Racists to opening advocate their oppressive views could become a serious threat to the revolution. We must guarantee that the revolution is fullfilled. We must guarantee the saftey of humanity.

[danyboy27]

In times of war and revolution, people openly preaching their oppressive views in public must be resisted with brutal force. Consistantly allowing Nazis, Fascists and Racists to opening advocate their oppressive views could become a threat to the revolution. We must guarantee that the revolution is fullfilled.

an appropriated sentence would have been: yea sure if some people dont think the way we think, we will kill them!

wich mean, if there is a revolution, beccause i am a social democrat me and my girlfriend are more likely to get shot by people like you beccause we pose a certain threat to revolution.

you have to admit that social democrat pose a threat, so you might just kill us too.

[Radical]

an appropriated sentence would have been: yea sure if some people dont think the way we think, we will kill them!

wich mean, if there is a revolution, beccause i am a social democrat me and my girlfriend are more likely to get shot by people like you beccause we pose a certain threat to revolution.

you have to admit that social democrat pose a threat, so you might just kill us too.

Social democrats would pose no serious threat to the revolution. . And yes, in times of war and revolution, those that posed a serious threat to the good of humanity would be executed. As they have been executed in every war of every country.

Nazis and Fascists dont just share views, they share oppressive views that would be detrimental to the good of humanity. I am not a Pacfist, I care for humanity. Therefore I shall fight to the death before I allow a Nazi to take power.

[danyboy27]

Social democrats would pose no serious threat to the revolution. . And yes, in times of war and revolution, those that posed a serious threat to the good of humanity would be executed. As they have been executed in every war of every country.

well we do pose a serious threat to revolution, most of communist will tell you that.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

2. The reputation of communists is decreased.

If nazis are hanging around intimidating people and assulting them while the police refuse to do anything becuase they are too busy harassing kids and the community gets rather sick of being harassed , what do you think the reaction will be to some Communists removing these dolts.


5. Nazis respond violently when they otherwise would've done nothing.

No thats the whole point of fascism , it reacts violently towards left wing movements if we defend ourselves or not.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

If nazis are hanging around intimidating people and assulting them while the police refuse to do anything becuase they are too busy harassing kids and the community gets rather sick of being harassed , what do you think the reaction will be to some Communists removing these dolts.


No thats the whole point of fascism , it reacts violently towards left wing movements if we defend ourselves or not.

I think I get it. I guess the idea of not censoring speech as a "universal rule" was appealing because if we censor Nazis, I would expect people to censor us. I think this is ultimately just fear mongering though.

We're undoubtedly better off without Nazis. I suppose it's just years of liberal education making me think something is wrong with limiting the freedom of others.

I can see how it's justifiable.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Your no more limiting the freedom of a nazi by attacking his meeting then you are limiting the freedom of a person by preventing them from pissing on your cat.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Your no more limiting the freedom of a nazi by attacking his meeting then you are limiting the freedom of a person by preventing them from pissing on your cat.

But would that make a capitalist justified in suppressing communists? We are a threat to their interests, aren't we? To their safety?

Preemptively harming anyone who would physical harm us, given the opportunity, seems to give us justification to censor and harm a myriad of people, revolution or not. This may very well be true, now that I think about it.

At a certain point, though, it seems like we should only use physical violence when it's productive at achieving our goals. In the case of Nazis, would it be illegitimate if public sentiment was opposed to such violence? Why or why not?

[synthesis]

I have notice on this site that the only answers to tackling problems arising from Nazism is through intimidation....but wouldn't it be far more productive to reason with them, and teach them the wrongs of what they're doing: Rehabilitation? Because, realistically, they're from a working class background; may have been lead to believe their ideas are correct.

Being "working class" is not an excuse for being an asshole.