Antifa and Free Speech

[Flying Trotsky]

Comrades, I want to start off with a quick disclaimer. I detest Fascists- let there be no question of that. And I believe that there are times when the best response to Fascism is direct, physical confrontation (we all have the right to defend ourselves).

However, as leftists, we all believe in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the freedom to congregate. How do we reconcile these beliefs with the need to confront our Fascist enemies?

To clarify, when should we be physically confronting Fascism, and when should be say "Hey, they're just some racists, and they have the freedom to be wrong."?

Any ideas?

[Anarchist Skinhead]

they have freedom of speech, we have freedom of smashing their megaphones over their heads paraphrasing introduction from "No Retreat" ;)

[Susurrus]

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them...We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. -Karl Popper

[Red And Black Sabot]

I don't believe in freedom of speech without freedom of action.
I demand both.
Say what you want, but don't think that you won't be held accountable or that you won't have to answer for it. Besides... We already know what fascists are organizing and what it means to us and our communities.

In short: What Anarchist Skinhead said.

[Luc]

We should probably physically confront them when they get to large and popular or when they attack our comrades (extended self-defense:lol:) or if they attack people because of their race.

If you meant non-violent legal confrontation then I think we should always disrupt their activities.

But we have to be careful not to over do it or else we will look like "bad Commies attacking European patriots" and when the Nazis and Fascists look like victims, they might gain sympathy:thumbdown:

As for the right to be wrong:

We should make sure to also prove they are wrong (though it is obvious, we still need empirical and scientific evidence; thats what seperates us from them). Then, we can add at the end of whatever media you choose to destroy the fascist arguments:

"Hey, they have a right to be wrong"

Preferably something more clever to get readers to dismiss the fascists as angry idiots

[piet11111]

Free speech for fascists should only serve to identify them and silence them.

[Imposter Marxist]

However, as leftists, we all believe in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the freedom to congregate.


We do?

[Razzle Dazzle]

Freedom of the press? What are you on about? You're all bonkers, mental, off your rockers, bat shit nuts.

[Nuvem]

Yeah, Trotsky was all over those Bourgeois papers with his Red Guard divisions, seizing their presses and banning the distribution of counter-revolutionary literature. Interesting thing for what appears to be a Trotskyist to say. This is a conversation I've had over 9000 times. Fascists don't have the right to speech, press, congregation, or life. Evolve and come to the understanding that there's a monopoly on speech in the dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie and of the Proletariat and that the state apparatus is used to silence the opposite class from making any meaningful statement; this is clear, undeniable and unavoidable. It's only the worst liberalism to argue for the rights to speech, press, congregation, etc. for a demographic of rabid nationalists who want nothing more than to kill and imprison you and I for our affiliations. Never forget '33 when the Gestapo came for the KPD, and never forget the struggles in Yugoslavia and Greece, and the heroic victory of the Soviet Union over the fascist Axis, and remember your obligation to attack fascists with all ferocity if they show their faces or dare attempt to indoctrinate our children! The deaths of more than 40,000,000 innocent people are on all of our shoulders, their bold sacrifice in defiance to fascist invasion hanging on us like a shroud. To betray their sacrifice and to coddle neo-fascists is only the worst kind of treason.

[The Douche]

Counter-revolutionaries should not have the right to organize, demonstrate publicly, speak publicly, publish anything, or promote counter-revolution.


"freedom of speech/press etc" is a totally bourgeois misconception of "rights".

[Welshy]

As I said in Antifa group.

I don't think freedom of speech or related freedoms extend to reactionaries and fascists. To allow such to happen would be counter productive in a revolutionary situation. Also Capitalism will always find a way to attack us and we must always fight back. As long as we don't go after innocent workers' and comrades, we shouldn't have to take the "principled" stance and allow fascists their "rights".

[Flying Trotsky]

Ok, maybe I should clarify things a bit here.

I believe in fighting Fascist scum. I'm doing some research for a blog post on the subject, and I'm trying to get other people's justifications or explanations as to why confronting Fascists is not an infringement of free speech. I am not trying to defend Fascists, and I am not trying to deny that Trotsky and Trotskyists alike have been involved in attacks upon enemy publications.

Look people, we're on the same side here. Let's all keep our cool, and have an honest, calm discussion about our various rationales.

[Welshy]

Ok, maybe I should clarify things a bit here.

This post was intended to be a discussion on what the proper parameters are for dealing the Fascist. I was wondering where we draw the line, what justifications we use for physical confrontation, and so on.

As for Trotsky's actions, yeah, he and his followers did attack bourgeois publications. They were in the middle of a revolution. You want to make that point, go right ahead, but don't pointlessly antagonize me. We're all on the same side here.

Let's all keep our heads, shall we?

As soon as they actively start advocating violence against other races or start acting violent towards other races, I feel that's when we have to start acting. Also what ever actions we take, we need to keep in mind we have to prevent more of them from popping up.

[Sensible Socialist]

Counter-revolutionaries should not have the right to organize, demonstrate publicly, speak publicly, publish anything, or promote counter-revolution.


"freedom of speech/press etc" is a totally bourgeois misconception of "rights".
And who defines a "counter-revolutionary?" You? Me? A council? It's a slippery slope when we start banning speech.

[Tim Cornelis]

Some of these people here are unbelievable, avowedly stating that everyone who doesn't agree with 'our' politics has no right to express their disagreement. Utterly disgusting.

[The Douche]

Revolution is an inherently authoritarian process.

I am open to hearing suggestions on how others think revolution can be defended while protecting the freedom of fascists to organize?

[Susurrus]

Revolution is an inherently authoritarian process.

I am open to hearing suggestions on how others think revolution can be defended while protecting the freedom of fascists to organize?

They may organize, and the revolutionaries may organize to crush them.

[Welshy]

They may organize, and the revolutionaries may organize to crush them.


How is crushing them any different from denying them their "right" to free speech, assembly and etc?

[tachosomoza]

Fascist groups use the umbrella of freedom of speech to plan their activities. You let them talk about their shit unmolested, eventually they're going to quit talking and start acting. I can't, in all good conscience, let that happen. Sorry.

[Susurrus]

How is crushing them any different from denying them their "right" to free speech, assembly and etc?

Well, as my first post shows, the right to free speech should be extend to those that believe in it as well, but should tolerance be given to those intending to crush tolerance(as the fascists do), tolerance itself is threatened, thus legitimizing attempts to save tolerance.

[thesadmafioso]

Fascists do not deserve to be allowed the privileged of spreading their vile filth, I don't need to reconcile that reality with anything. I do not think these freedoms should be extended to those who wish to force such a nefarious and deprived ideology upon the world, as the threat of what they purport far outweighs the value of any categorical devotion to bourgeois liberty.

[Mettalian]

I, personally, have no tolerance for fascists, racists, homophobes, mysoginists et al. Call it intolerance if you wish, but I don't extend any pleasantries towards unwarrented hatred, and it sickens me when people are allowed to preach such hatred because freedom of speech is held as this holy grail that we must all worship. But I am glad that there are others in the left that feel differently than me and many others here, as it promotes debate which will, hopefully, lead to the best solution.

[tachosomoza]

I quit debating about this a long assed time ago. I don't tolerate that bullshit. Freedom of speech has limits. Nobody should urge others to violent action against an individual simply because of the way they choose to live. If you seek to deny rights to others, then you don't deserve those rights yourself. Maybe it's my position and experiences as an African-American male that have made me this way...

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Some of these people here are unbelievable, avowedly stating that everyone who doesn't agree with 'our' politics has no right to express their disagreement. Utterly disgusting.

Well just imagine this for a second. You have successfully overthrown the capitalists and have set up a workers government where you live. Would you allow the people who are going to use all of their energy to destroy it into the government itself? Will you allow FOX news to sit there and brainwash people's minds with apocalyptic visions of how bad communism is or are you going to appropriate their property(thereby getting rid of their freedom speech)? Most bourgoeis rights are heavily intertwined with what we seek to destroy which is private property.

[Tim Cornelis]

Yeah, Trotsky was all over those Bourgeois papers with his Red Guard divisions, seizing their presses and banning the distribution of counter-revolutionary literature. Interesting thing for what appears to be a Trotskyist to say. This is a conversation I've had over 9000 times. Fascists don't have the right to speech, press, congregation, or life. Evolve and come to the understanding that there's a monopoly on speech in the dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie and of the Proletariat and that the state apparatus is used to silence the opposite class from making any meaningful statement; this is clear, undeniable and unavoidable. It's only the worst liberalism to argue for the rights to speech, press, congregation, etc. for a demographic of rabid nationalists who want nothing more than to kill and imprison you and I for our affiliations. Never forget '33 when the Gestapo came for the KPD, and never forget the struggles in Yugoslavia and Greece, and the heroic victory of the Soviet Union over the fascist Axis, and remember your obligation to attack fascists with all ferocity if they show their faces or dare attempt to indoctrinate our children! The deaths of more than 40,000,000 innocent people are on all of our shoulders, their bold sacrifice in defiance to fascist invasion hanging on us like a shroud. To betray their sacrifice and to coddle neo-fascists is only the worst kind of treason.

Then I should've been executed at the age of 13. I read the majority of neo-Nazis denounce their ideology before the age of 24. Killing them whilst them not engaging in such activities prevents them from seeing the light.

Even fascists have the right to freedom of speech, but when they touch someone, "send them to the cemetery".

[Tim Cornelis]

Well just imagine this for a second. You have successfully overthrown the capitalists and have set up a workers government where you live. Would you allow the people who are going to use all of their energy to destroy it into the government itself? Will you allow FOX news to sit there and brainwash people's minds with apocalyptic visions of how bad communism is or are you going to appropriate their property(thereby getting rid of their freedom speech)? Most bourgoeis rights are heavily intertwined with what we seek to destroy which is private property.

Yes I would accord them all those rights to spread their lies how frustrating it may be.

[tachosomoza]

Well just imagine this for a second. You have successfully overthrown the capitalists and have set up a workers government where you live. Would you allow the people who are going to use all of their energy to destroy it into the government itself? Will you allow FOX news to sit there and brainwash people's minds with apocalyptic visions of how bad communism is or are you going to appropriate their property(thereby getting rid of their freedom speech)? Most bourgoeis rights are heavily intertwined with what we seek to destroy which is private property.

How exactly would we appropriate their property? The only way I would see this happening is through force. They never get off of anything voluntarily.

[Welshy]

Yes I would accord them all those rights to spread their lies how frustrating it may be.

Then I guess you will get to enjoy seeing your comrades getting executed by the very fascists you allowed to spread.

Also as far as the whole a lot of fascists renouncing their beliefs by the the age of 24 thing is concerned, I think that's great. But if a bunch of 18 year old neo-nazi with guns advocate the defeat of the workers' revolution, then it necessary for the survival of the revolution and a lot of workers' if we do away with them as soon as possible. Not necessarily kill, but prevent them from spreading their hate and being a force.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Yes I would accord them all those rights to spread their lies how frustrating it may be.
Then how the fuck are you a communist if you're not going to dismantle a huge corporation which FOX news is apart of?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

How exactly would we appropriate their property? The only way I would see this happening is through force. They never get off of anything voluntarily.
Good thing we're not pacifists right.

[tachosomoza]

Good thing we're not pacifists right.

The only thing that Malcolm X said that I can agree with: "A peaceful revolution is a failed revolution from the get-go."

[Flying Trotsky]

Revolution is an inherently authoritarian process.

I am open to hearing suggestions on how others think revolution can be defended while protecting the freedom of fascists to organize?

That's simply not true- there's no purer expression of democracy than a revolution.

[Welshy]

That's simply not true- there's no purer expression of democracy than a revolution.

You have the majority of society (the workers) disposing and enforcing its will upon a minority (the capitalists) and taking their property. That is pretty authoritarian.

[Flying Trotsky]

You have the majority of society (the workers) disposing and enforcing its will upon a minority (the capitalists) and taking their property. That is pretty authoritarian.

Rule of the majority? That's the very definition of democracy.

[Flying Trotsky]

But let's change things up a bit.

The consensus so far is "Fascists use their free speech to infringe on the rights of others, so confronting them is justified".

I agree. But if your grandmother, or some old relative, is making racist remarks? What do you do with regards to their free speech?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Rule of the majority? That's the very definition of democracy.
The act of taking away someone's property, overthrowing through force a government, etc, is authoritarian but it can also be democratic.

[Dr Mindbender]

The 92 fatalities in Norway are empirical proof of what happens when you give political margin to these scum.

[The Douche]

Rule of the majority? That's the very definition of democracy.

The majority does what? It rules? So its exercising its authority.


People have this idea that "authoritarian" means a minority are in charge, but thats not anywhere in the definition of the word.

[Aspiring Humanist]

Fascists aren't human ergo they have no rights

[tachosomoza]

Fascists aren't human ergo they have no rights

They're very much human, but they often think that others aren't. Look at chimp out.com for an example.

[Fopeos]

Under current conditions the bourgeois state allows freedom of speech and assembly to any ideology. I support those freedoms within the confines of bourgeois democracy but only to safeguard OUR ability to organize. If the state takes those freedoms from the far right, they'll also take them from the left. The best way to combat rightists is to organize counter-demonstrations. Overwhelm them, drown them out. They'll be more and more demoralized while the left will gain confidence. This scenario plays out everytime the klan comes to town.
Of course, this relationship of forces won't be relevent in a revolutionary situation. We won't have to debate what to do with fascists. We'll be too busy defending ourselves from them.

[Luc]

One way we could justify it is based on how rights a secured:

"Political rights do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace."
-Rudolf Rocker

If the people don't care that the fascists are loosing their free speech, right to assembly, etc. Then it would be okay because freedoms and rights are protected, not by a constitution or state but by the people.
Since we won't have a state but a Commune instead, it will be largely the people themselves taking thoose rights and freedoms rather than a tyrannical state.

Besides, freedom of speech is the ability to speek freely without out censorship. However, "Freedom of speech" is censored right now i.e. slander, incitement, obscenities, etc. So technically they never had freedom of speech in the first place.

Therefore, we are not taking away their freedom of speech because that would imply that they had it.

Just one way you could look at it.

[RedSquare]

I might not agree with what they say, but I'd defend to the death their right to say it. However, when they become involved in any form of organised violence then it's morally acceptable to retaliate.

[thefinalmarch]

Y'all should take a good look at this post I bookmarked in my lurking days:

Fascists and NAZIs don't make public speeches for the sake of the exchange of ideas or idle discussion and debate. Typically they make speeches and have rallies in order to "put people in their place" and intimidate the working class. Recently in Los Angeles, neo-nazis from Detroit were allowed to make a speech advocating the forced re-location of Latino immigrants. Why would Detroit NAZIs want to come to LA for this speech? Were they hoping to attract people Los Angelenos to their cause? Would it be worth it to get a devotee who lived clear across the country? No, they went to LA because there is a large Latino population.

In the 80s and 90s neo-Nazis also famously tried to have marches through a Jewish enclave in the US.

It is not simply a case of "bad ideas" with NAZIs and fascists, they want to intimidate workers and that is why they should be opposed and shouted-down whenever they show up.

Also, there is no such thing as real free-speech in the abstract. No one would be able to make a speech advocating the rape of a child without being shouted down... yet people always seem to want to allow fascists to be able to freely advocate genocide or forced relocation of minorities or the elimination of all our rights? A child being raped, while awful, is objectively not as horrible as what the fascists advocate.

[Renno]

No government fights fascism to destroy it. When the bourgeoisie sees that power is slipping out of its hands, it brings up fascism to hold onto their privileges.

There are only two roads, victory for the working class, freedom, or victory for the fascists which means tyranny. Both combatants know what's in store for the loser.

Durruti

[Fietsketting]

I might not agree with what they say, but I'd defend to the death their right to say it. However, when they become involved in any form of organised violence then it's morally acceptable to retaliate.

Time for a new avatar then?

[griffjam]

Free Speech FAQ

Stopping fascists from speaking makes you just as bad as them.

You could just as easily say that not stopping fascists from speaking—giving them the opportunity to organize to impose their agenda on the rest of us—makes you as bad as them. If you care about freedom, don’t stand idly by while people mobilize to take it away.

Shouldn’t we just ignore them? They want attention, and if we give it to them we’re letting them win.

Actually, fascists usually don’t want to draw attention to their organizing; they do most of it in secret for fear that an outraged public will shut them down. They only organize public events to show potential recruits that they have power, and to try to legitimize their views as part of the political spectrum. By publicly opposing fascists, we make it clear to them—and more importantly, to anyone else interested in joining them—that they will not be able to consolidate power over us without a fight. Ignoring fascists only allows them to organize unhindered, and history shows that this can be very dangerous. Better we shut them down once and for all.

The best way to defeat fascism is to let them express their views so that everyone can see how ignorant they are. We can refute them more effectively with ideas than force.

People don’t become fascists because they find their ideas persuasive; they become fascists for the same reason others become police officers or politicians: to wield power over other people. It’s up to us to show that fascist organizing will not enable them to obtain this power, but will only result in public humiliation. That is the only way to cut off their source of potential recruits. History has shown over and over that fascism is not defeated by ideas alone, but by popular self-defense. We’re told that if all ideas are debated openly, the best one will win out, but this fails to account for the reality of unequal power. Fascists can be very useful to those with power and privilege, who often supply them with copious resources; if they can secure more airtime and visibility for their ideas than we can, we would be fools to limit ourselves to that playing field. We can debate their ideas all day long, but if we don’t prevent them from building the capacity to make them reality, it won’t matter.

Neo-Nazis are irrelevant; institutionalized racism poses the real threat today, not the extremists at the fringe.

The bulk of racism takes place in subtle, everyday forms. But fascist visibility enables other right-wing groups to frame themselves as moderates, helping to legitimize the racist and xenophobic assumptions underlying their positions and the systems of power and privilege they defend. Taking a stand against fascists is an essential step toward discrediting the structures and values at the root of institutionalized racism. Here and worldwide, fascists still terrorize and murder people because of racial, religious, and sexual difference. It’s both naïve and disrespectful to their victims to gloss over the past and present realities of fascist violence. Because fascists believe in acting directly to carry out their agenda rather than limiting themselves to the apparatus of representative democracy, they can be more dangerous proportionate to their numbers than other bigots. This makes it an especially high priority to deal with them swiftly.

Free speech means protecting everyone’s right to speak, including people you don’t agree with. How would you like it if you had an unpopular opinion and other people were trying to silence you?

We oppose fascists because of what they do, not what they say. We’re not opposed to free speech; we’re opposed to the fact that they advance an agenda of hate and terror. We have no power to censor them; thanks to the “neutrality” of the capitalist market, they continue to publish hate literature in print and the internet. But we will not let them come into our communities to build the power they need to enact their hatred. The government and the police have never protected everyone’s free speech equally, and never will. It is in their self-interest to repress views and actions that challenge existing power inequalities. They will spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars on riot police, helicopters, and sharpshooters to defend a KKK rally, but if there’s an anarchist rally the same police will be there to stop it, not to protect it. Anarchists don’t like being silenced by the state—but we don’t want the state to define and manage our freedom, either. Unlike the ACLU, whose supposed defense of “freedom” leads them to support the KKK and others like them, we support self-defense and selfdetermination above all. What’s the purpose of free speech, if not to foster a world free from oppression? Fascists oppose this vision;thus we oppose fascism by any means necessary.

If fascists don’t have a platform to express their views peacefully, it will drive them to increasingly violent means of expression.

Fascists are only attempting to express their views “peacefully” in order to lay the groundwork for violent activity. Because fascists require a veneer of social legitimacy to be able to carry out their program, giving them a platform to speak opens the door to their being able to do physical harm to people. Public speech promoting ideologies of hate, whether or not you consider it violent on its own, always complements and correlates with violent actions. By affiliating themselves with movements and ideologies based on oppression and genocide, fascists show their intention to carry on these legacies of violence—but only if they can develop a base of support.

Trying to suppress their voices will backfire by generating interest in them.

Resistance to fascism doesn’t increase interest in fascist views. If anything, liberals mobilizing to defend fascists on free speech grounds increases interest in their views by conferring legitimacy on them. This plays directly into their organizing goals, allowing them to drive a wedge between their opponents using free speech as a smokescreen. By tolerating racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and xenophobia, so-called free speech advocates are complicit in the acts of terror fascist organizing makes possible.

They have rights like everybody else.

No one has the right to threaten our community with violence. Likewise, we reject the “right” of the government and police—who have more in common with fascists than they do with us—to decide for us when fascists have crossed the line from merely expressing themselves into posing an immediate threat. We will not abdicate our freedom to judge when and how to defend ourselves.

[El Rojo]

regarding an individual fash, Trotsky's line was try to convince them that they are wrong, and if that fails, equate thier heads with the pavement.

[DarkPast]

In my opinion, banning fascist gatherings will not convince fascists to change their ways. They'll merely find other ways to push their agenda. Best to let them speak their minds. Then prove how utterly wrong they are - and this is not hard, since their theories are irrational and simply cannot hold up to counter-arguments. Make it obvious those being thus humiliates are fascists, make it clear to the people who these fascists really are - and the idea will eventually die out.

If they turn violent, of course we must of course respond in kind. But bear in mind that violence alone will not destroy fascism; the Third Reich was a smoking ruin at the end of World War 2, but fascism still survived. Proper education, however, might succeed where violence failed (which is not to say that violence will not be required at some point).

[Nox]

Because what Fascists preach is dangerous to humanity.

[Anarchist Skinhead]

DarkPast- we are not really trying to change their views, if you think you can, they you are wasting your time. We are trying to show them that any kind of organising in the communities they want to do will be met with militant resistance. Thatys the whole point, to deny them any ground and make them too scared to preach their hate.

[tachosomoza]

Reactionaries never change. To expect them to do otherwise is foolhardy. The only way to deal with them is to stoop to their violent level.

[noble brown]

W /in the current state of affairs rights are granted by the state. A communist society would, if anything, revoke ones rights and b done so on a local or communal level. The right to speech oughta b mandatory. Period. Everything else is a slippery slope. U either have freedom of speech or not. No clause or exceptions. Now if u think its more important to make an exception then that's ur perogative but lets call a duck a duck here its no longer freedom.
Ur looking at the problem all wrong. U don't solve shit by stopping ppl from hearing a message. Its not that they hear something that we should b worried about but that u believe what u hear. U won't ever get rid of the wackos (they play their own part in this) conflict will always ensue when u restrict ppl as a group.
Lets instead educate ppl so they won't b enraptured by fascism or racism or any other dumb shit
U give ppl education and u won't have to take ppls rights away. Our rights are inalienable but lets get it right this time... no exceptions.
Be that as it may, we can't educate everyone right now. Society is still enslaved, we have no say in things like how ppl are educated so the next best solution is to shut a muthafkkas mouth. The masses are easily swayed by b.s. the revolution will only b successful w/ the masses.so until we can educate them I think its morally imperitive that we protect them from harm (fascists) as a policy. Its distasteful but circumstances are such. Them fkkas are dangerous, socially speaking.

[Sasha]

Free Speech FAQ
[...]

stolen and stickied

[Game Girl]

I'm all for free speech. But those fascist thugs use it as a weapon! Anyone who spews unjustified hatred does not deserve such rights!

Free Speech =/= Hate Speech

[Anarchist Skinhead]

quoting again from the great FAQ above: What’s the purpose of free speech, if not to foster a world free from oppression? Fascists oppose this vision;thus we oppose fascism by any means necessary.

'nuff said.

[Thirsty Crow]

If they turn violent, of course we must of course respond in kind. But bear in mind that violence alone will not destroy fascism; the Third Reich was a smoking ruin at the end of World War 2, but fascism still survived. Proper education, however, might succeed where violence failed (which is not to say that violence will not be required at some point).
Fascist organization persist not because the military defeat of the regimes in question was not strong enough of a factor, but rather because the social conditions in which such groups, movements and organizations take form were far from gone.

[DarkPast]

Reactionaries never change. To expect them to do otherwise is foolhardy. The only way to deal with them is to stoop to their violent level.

Absolutely untrue. There are ex-fascists on this very forum.


Fascist organization persist not because the military defeat of the regimes in question was not strong enough of a factor, but rather because the social conditions in which such groups, movements and organizations take form were far from gone.

But that's my point: the correct way to stop fascism is to remove those conditions. Simply banning fascist symbols and hate speech obviously doesn't work; in Germany those things are outright illegal and punishable by up to several years in prison, but it still doesn't stop the fascists.

[Thirsty Crow]

But that's my point: the correct way to stop fascism is to remove those conditions. Simply banning fascist symbols and hate speech obviously doesn't work; in Germany those things are outright illegal and punishable by up to several years in prison, but it still doesn't stop the fascists.
That would be because German society is based on capitalist relations of production, and consequently because social conditions pertaining to exploitation and political domination, extending to the global scale, still remain intact, however modified by certain intrventions into the relations of production.

But that does not tell us anything about concrete measures in a revolutionary society to be undertaken for self-defense with respect to Fascists. I'd argue in fact that your approach of outarguing the fascists, based in logical argument put foward in media of public discourse, is not relevant here because such groups are not interested in argumentative debate, open to different perspectives. I think it would be logical to assume that fascist activity will not take the form of a political organization out in the open, producing arguments and forwarding political positions, but rather that clandestine terror groups, in one way or another connected to countries in proximity which resist social revolution.

If it is to be shown that such forms of resistance to workers' power arise, then the question of self-defense shifts from your proposed terrain of rational debate to terrains of specific ways of repression and coercion. It is precisely this context that enables us to debate whether it would be necessary to lock up a random guy who is vocal about his dislike for X ethnic minority, for LGBTQ people, or workers' taking over production and running it in their interests, but does not seem to be a pat of an organized network of reaction.

Of course, this branches out into a discussion on specific institutions of self-defense aiming at uncovering the before mentioned clandestine fascist groups.

[DarkPast]

I see what you mean - I was thinking of public gatherings and an individual's rights to express an opinion. I agree that, in a worker-controlled society, pro-fascist and pro-capitalist gatherings should be closely monitored for outside (reactionary) influence. However, I also consider suppressing an individual for his expressing his/her own opinions to be entirely unacceptable.

It goes without saying that violence against the worker's society should be met with violence and any organizations that participate in it should be banned, no exceptions.

In other words, what I believe is this: A man should be allowed to write a song with a pro-nazi slant and submit it to a radio station. But a real socialist state - one where there's democratic control over the radio stations - would never play that song. If it would, then something is obviously wrong with the state's socialist character.

[Thirsty Crow]

I see what you mean - I was thinking of public gatherings and an individual's rights to express an opinion. I agree that, in a worker-controlled society, pro-fascist and pro-capitalist gatherings should be closely monitored for outside (reactionary) influence. However, I also consider suppressing an individual for his expressing his/her own opinions to be entirely unacceptable.Two things:

1) I don't see why there would be a blanket ban on expressing certain kinds of opinions outside situations of immediate political character (I would most certainly advocate a ban on any kind of pro-capitalist political organization) as was that hypothetical example of a guy talking to his neighbours or co-workers.

2) However, I do think that an immediate reaction, with unpleasant consequences, is to be expected and I is not to be discouraged by means of coercion. This ties in to what you brought up in the final paragraph of your post so I'll elaborate on it there. More or less the same goes for gatherings of more of a spontaneous nature, but organized opposition to workers' power is to be fought by almost all means necessary, and that includes, as I've said, political organizing of any kind


It goes without saying that violence against the worker's society should be met with violence and any organizations that participate in it should be banned, no exceptions.I would go further than this and say that any opposition that claims peaceful means is in fact employing pacifist rhetoric as an ideological tool and is not to be trusted.


In other words, what I believe is this: A man should be allowed to write a song with a pro-nazi slant and submit it to a radio station. But a real socialist state - one where there's democratic control over the radio stations - would never play that song. If it would, then something is obviously wrong with the state's socialist character.That's a nice example ushering in the question of social ostracism which was touched upon above.
I also agree with the main thrust of the argument, that workers' in charge of the service/production in question should be empowered to deal with such issues as they see fit, with proper responsibility to the wider community.

[DarkPast]

Alright. I find myself mostly in agreement with you, except for one thing. Let me ask you a simple question: Would you feel it justified to use force against a strictly non-violent opposition group?

[Anarchist Skinhead]

probably not, but i cant see what sort of opposition would be "strictly non violent".

[Vanguard1917]

The 92 fatalities in Norway are empirical proof of what happens when you give political margin to these scum.

No, the killing spree of a lone maniac in Norway is not proof that we need further restrictions on free speech and democratic rights.

There's a lot of macho muscle-flexing in this thread, but, ironically, what most of it is motivated by is a pathetic irrational fear of irrelevant groups on the far-right and a breathtakingly cowardly readiness to hide beneath the skirt of the bourgeois state by condoning it having even greater powers to police political life in order to protect us from a few evil skinheads in extremely marginal sections of rightwing politics.

For Marxists, it's definitely not the correct position to call for or ignore bourgeois censorship against the far right, because we know that such state powers will ultimately be used against socialists. And while physical force by socialists against the far-right is an entirely legitimate and correct tactic under certain circumstances, as is 'no platform' in some situations, such tactics are not abstract laws or sacred principles. Debate is also an entirely legitimate tactic under certain circumstances. Why on earth should an intelligent socialist be afraid of entering into a debate with a member of the BNP if challenged to do so? When UAF's Weyman Bennett refused to tear apart (assuming he was capable of doing so) a BNP leader's arguments on a political radio show, making the old 'no platform' excuse for his refusal, deciding to make a mockery of himself rather the donut on the other side, and shouting 'Turn the BNP into HMP' (i.e. imprison the BNP in Her Majesty's Prisons), how did that make the 'anti-fascist' activist come across to the public? Favourably?

[Sasha]

i dont know about other groups but we @ AFA never call for state intervention.
yes we inform the state about the finer points of their fascist problem, and yes we use the then obvious failure/unwillingnes of the state to protect the community as propaganda when we do go on the offensive.
but it should be cristal clear that imho when people call on this forum for action against the fash you are meant to understand this as an call for leftist/communual action not state/bourgeois action.
while we dont care when the state arrests fash we dont call for it, we call for their demo's ect getting done over by us, not the cops.

[Dogs On Acid]

People who oppose freedom don't deserve freedom.

It's the ultimate oxymoron.

[ColonelCossack]

freedom isn't freedom if it compromises the freedom of others- the internationale hits the nail on the head when it says, "Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all".

[noble brown]

Look I've been this king on this a little. Its occurred to me that I want freedom because it should be mine, a priori. It belongs to all of us in all aspects. The only way you can restrict someones freedom is if they ve entered into an exPlicit social contract. At least that's the ideal.

More practically though the current social structure allows for easy manipulation of great swaths of the population. I'm not worried bout the odd little fascist to stupid to think critically about what he's saying but I'm worried about the fascist that control the media, schools and our general social enviroment. This is the shit that's got to be stopped bY any means necessary. U can call it what you want; restricting someonesfreedom or doing freeing the ppl.