Is armed vigilantism against fascists ever justified?

[GerrardWinstanley]

I was just thinking about events in Greece and the fact that almost half the police force who voted, voted for Golden Dawn. This means that a party who wants to drag non-whites out of hospital beds to kill them deport them has the backing of the police. This view is supported by the fact nobody was prosecuted for the assaults on opposition MP's by Golden Dawn thugs. My point is, when fascism at street level begins to threaten the lives of minorities and even their political opponents and the police cannot be trusted to stop them, are anti-fascist justified in taking matters into their own hands.

I'm also thinking of the outrageous sentencing of transgender woman CeCe MacDonald in America for killing a Neo-Nazi scumbag in self-defence with scissors she had on hand. She would have faced 80 years in prison had she pleaded guilty. It seems that only fascists are the ones with rights when it comes to hate crimes (such crimes, we are told by invariably white, heterosexual right-wingers, do not even exist). Likewise, fascists thugs are able to make people's lives a misery in Europe with impunity. The Russian state protects the Orthodox thugs who terrorise the gay community. Meanwhile the latter's peaceful demonstratons are banned.

So I think we can establish there is a war on "the other" in many parts of the apparently civilised world. Don't such people have a right to fight back using every means at their disposal? Would you support targets of fascist violence arming themselves? Could killing (and I don't merely mean killing in self-defence, but also revenge attacks) the more dangerous fascists be a necessary evil?

I know this may sound a bit extreme and/or counterintuitive to some people, but most of us have the sense to know the victims of a war have a right to arm themselves and fight back and I am just extending this principle to street violence and the wars waged against communities.

Or does vigilantism, by substituting might for right, always make matters worse? :unsure:

I'd be really interested in the opinions of dedicated anti-fascists on here, but any opinions are welcome. Thanks.

[Lobotomy]

well, that's kind of the point of Antifa. I doubt you'll find anyone around here who thinks it's morally wrong to commit acts of violence against fascists. the real question is if it is constructive/useful or not. Racism (and therefore people with racist mentalities) are a result of having a hierarchical mode of production--at the end of the day you can't expect the problem of racism to actually be solved by making a few individual attacks on fascist scumbags here and there. So yes, it is justified, but arguably futile in the grand scheme of things.

[jookyle]

In the face of oppression one must consider all options for liberation and the defeat of their oppressors. It has to be a situation to situation basis as to whether or not it's justified. If violence will truly be the most effective method for the situation then there isn't much of a choice. But before you use violence you have to weigh all of the options and analyze the situation as much you can.

[Igor]

Armed vigilantism against fascists is never unjustified, I'd put it. They'd kick your face in without blinking an eyelid, in fact, they often do. Strong fascist community is an active, real security threat to leftists everywhere, and to abandon the idea of violent resistance is just stupid. Don't turn your other cheek to these guys.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I wouldn't care for a second if someone went out, rounded up the fascists, and cut their heads off on national TV.

However, antifascist violence has to be defensive (sadly), since in the eyes of the public the person who "starts it" is the bad guy.

In my eyes is violence justified? Yes, absolutely. be as violent as possible with fascists.

However we also have to worry about public perception, and we can't go out shooting fascists in the streets just yet.

Although if you do get a chance to crack a fash head right open I'd say go for it because in the end, they would do the same to you.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Gotta get them before they get you!

[TheAltruist]

Yeah, I think that of course consideration is needed before anyone ever engages in violence in any sort. But being fascists, who are prone to violence themselves, self-defense is important. Just make sure that your side of the story will be viewed favorably.

[Capitalist Octopus]

The ability to debate on the appropriateness of violence is a privilege many people simply don't have. For them, their entire existence is violent and they have no choice. The fight is upon them.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I do think it's important to note that fascists aren't at the vanguard of oppressing minorities in the vast majority of cases in the world. Maybe all cases, even.

Fascists weren't the ones who denied citizenship to the children of immigrants born in Germany all the way up until 2000, fascists aren't the ones conducting ICE raids in the USA, etc.

Depending on where you live I'd say there are bigger problems to worry about.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Violence in self-defense against fascists, what could be bad about that? Trotsky wrote about acquainting their heads with the sidewalk as a form of political therapy. When they try to march, speak, demonstrate, they should be met with the fist of the working class -- they are a menacing danger. You don't have to kill them, just disperse them and make them look like the fucking cowards they are. That really hurts their ability to recruit and expand, you know. And all the stupid petite bourgeois crap about "free speech for fascists"? Screw that. They are not discussion clubs -- they are terror organizations guns aimed at the hearts of the proletariat.

[LeftAbove]

Only when fascists reach an obvious threat will violence be justified.

[Rafiq]

Are you suggesting there exist some kind of "moral deadlock" here? We're radicals, not pacifists.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Misanthrope]

I can see why one would get in a fight with fash scum if encountered on the streets, just don't think you're accomplishing anything political and stop the romantic bullshit.

[hashem]

while i believe any armed struggle of vanguard elements is legitimate, but i dont think they would be effective. i refer anyone who is interested in reading more about this question to critisism made by Lenin of revolutionary narodniks (SR's) in "What is to be done?".

[kuriousoranj]

The anti-oppressive act of oppressing oppression, and all that...

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Is armed vigilantism against fascists ever justified?

F#ck yeah!

Fascists allways use violence, we must use violence as well.

"The anti-oppressive act of oppressing oppression, and all that..."

Well, if you are opressing opression then you are stoping people from being opressed, the point is, if you don't opress the fascists they opress you.

[The Machine]

sure, just don't pretend to be a materialist

[Art Vandelay]

sure, just don't pretend to be a materialist

What?

[Rss]

Basic military strategy - Being on defensive equals giving initiative to the enemy, which is stupid. Offense is the best defense. Take the fight to the enemy's turf. Take out HQs, communications and logistics. Spread terror in their homefront. Be merciless for they give you no quarter.

[Terminator X]

No doubt that beating the shit out of fash types is perfectly justified. I have personally been targeted by the WN movement with threats against my family, "outing" me politically at my place of employment, etc. These boneheads aren't subtle and will use violence as a way of accomplishing their aims, so it's only prudent to respond in kind. It's the only language they understand, so to speak.

Most of the violence originates in the political realm, but it basically just boils down to street fights and doesn't advance my political aims - it's more like defending my family/beliefs/personal well-being. I don't have any romantic illusions about "fighting for the anarchist cause" - it's more of a "I hate racist neo-Nazi boneheads and like to fight" type of thing.