Athens Antifa repel GoldenDawn attack, one injured nazi turns out to be cop

[Sasha]

Neonazi attack against social centre in the suburb of Zografou is repelled by anti-fascists; one of the injured nazis is a serving police officer Sunday, February 3, 2013

In the late hours of February 2nd, following an annual commemorative demonstration by the neo-nazis of the Golden Dawn, a small number of the motorbikes that were guarding the neonazi demonstration headed toward the self-organised social space Villa Zografou. There, they were repelled by the anti-fascists inside and in the ensuing clashes, four of the attackers were injured. Of them, one of them was an serving police officer, as he was treated for his injuries at the 401 Hospital in Athens, which only admits serving members of the army and the police.



http://blog.occupiedlondon.org/2013/02/03/neonazi-attack-against-social-centre-in-the-suburb-of-zografou-is-repelled-by-anti-fascists-one-of-the-injured-nazis-is-a-serving-police-officer/

[Delenda Carthago]

In Greece, when you say "antifa" you dont speak in general about antifascists, but for some specific groups that belong to the autonomy milieu and have their roots to the proletarian autonomy of Italy and the autonome movement in Germany of the 80s-90s.

And that insidend was not from "antifa", but mostly anarchists.

[Mather]

With the worrying rise of the Golden Dawn and their increasing cooperation and intergration with the police, we will only see an increase in such attacks.

Has this made Greek anarchists/socialists/anti-fascists start thinking of new ways and ideas on how best to deal with this very real threat? It now really looks like a situation where having self defence squads may be a good idea.

[Comrade Nasser]

Well, from my experience many anarchists are also part of Antifa and vice-versa :grin: I know I am at least. We really need to stop distancing ourselves and we need to work towards our common goal together. Communists, Anarchists, and Antifa we are all allies in this against the fascists. That's just my opinion on that. Kudos to Athens Antifa!

[Art Vandelay]

Holy shit the situation in Greece just keeps getting scarier and scarier. I mean we all knew this was a distinct possibility, since GD has such a strong support base among the police, but it is undeniable now neo-nazism has a very serious chance of taking hold in Greece if the left doesn't get its shit together.

[Comrade Nasser]

Holy shit the situation in Greece just keeps getting scarier and scarier. I mean we all knew this was a distinct possibility, since GD has such a strong support base among the police, but it is undeniable now neo-nazism has a very serious chance of taking hold in Greece if the left doesn't get its shit together.

Hit the nail on the head 9mm. All the leftists no matter what specific political spectrum they are at need to get their shit together quick and join up against these scumbags.

[Mather]

Holy shit the situation in Greece just keeps getting scarier and scarier.

I know, my own feelings on Greece seem to be like a roller coaster. On the one hand I can see a level of class struggle and class consciousness developing in Greece that gives me some hope, then news such as this can douse such hope as all now appears possible in Greece, even revolution or fascist reaction.


I mean we all knew this was a distinct possibility, since GD has such a strong support base among the police, but it is undeniable now neo-nazism has a very serious chance of taking hold in Greece if the left doesn't get its shit together.

Indeed. I think the next few years are going to be critical in terms of where Golden Dawn go from here and how the working class and revolutionaries deal with that.

[Delenda Carthago]

Hit the nail on the head 9mm. All the leftists no matter what specific political spectrum they are at need to get their shit together quick and join up against these scumbags.
Do you think history has proven that this thing works?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Do you think history has proven that this thing works?As opposed to what?

Both popular and united front tactics have worked in opposing specific threats and attacks by fasicsts. I think there are inherent problems with popular fronts and that these formations can sometimes limit the full potential of fight-back, but they have worked in at least resisting fascist movements historically - such as in France.

[Delenda Carthago]

As opposed to what?

Both popular and united front tactics have worked in opposing specific threats and attacks by fasicsts. I think there are inherent problems with popular fronts and that these formations can sometimes limit the full potential of fight-back, but they have worked in at least resisting fascist movements historically - such as in France.
Nice example- France!

Where you had an anti-fascist government, by the Popular Front. What happened? The PF banned the creators of it, the communists and after a while it collapsed. The case of socialism was long gone after that. So what does that tells us about class collaboration against the nazis? For me(and my party), the only antifascism is class struggle itself and the only thing that can stop them is socialist revolution. Nothing less.

[Ravachol]

As opposed to what?

Both popular and united front tactics have worked in opposing specific threats and attacks by fasicsts. I think there are inherent problems with popular fronts and that these formations can sometimes limit the full potential of fight-back, but they have worked in at least resisting fascist movements historically - such as in France.

Get out of here man. Popular and united fronts have always ended in workers' blood and tears and did nothing to stop the rise of fascism anywhere, whether it's Spain '36, Germany '33, Italy '22 or whateverthefuck. As for France:



Capitalism’s forms depend no more on the preferences of wage workers than they do on the intentions of the bourgeoisie. Weimar capitulated to Hitler with open arms. Léon Blum’s Popular Front did not “avoid fascism”, because in 1936 France required neither an authoritarian unification of capital nor a shrinking of its middle classes.


This is good reading (endnotes.org.uk/texts/endnotes_1/when-insurrections-die.xhtml)

[Jimmie Higgins]

Niether of you provided an alternative or understood my point at all. I argued about tactics for stopping an immediate threat; but your criticisms are that they don't lead to socialism. Well no fucking shit popular fronts are a failure - that's why I said it was "inherently flawed" even though they can put down an attack or coup. Know what else doesn't lead to socialism: being killed in a fascist prison. And as far as I can tell this seems to be the alternative you folks have on offer.

As I said there are inherent problems with the popular front model because this leads to a weakening of any independant working class movement. I do support united fronts though because they are capable of actually giving credibility to the worker's movement because the different factions retain their own identities and aims.

In the face of Franco's fascism, the worker's movement was forced to abandon anarchist principles of non-cooperation out of pure necissity for survival. But only the working class forces influenced and led by the anarchists had the organic support and revolutionary tactics necissary to both push back the fascists and allow the revolution to continue, making the resistance not just resistance but a liberation force. Instead they stumbled into popular-frontism and disaster... the republicans and the Communists had no power and would have had no choice but to follow had the worker's movement not sought blanket "unity" with them. Though the popular front unity could have some sucess in repelling Franco, the problem was that the worker's movement didn't just tactically ally, but actually then helped the CP who were opposed to revolution for the sake of "unity".

So is the popular front a method for advancing "socialism"? No, that was not my argument. Despite the inherent limitations though - this method did have some IMMEDIATE sucess in pushing back against fascist attacks.

When fascists are small and relativly "marginal" then such tactics are not as necissary and there are a range of methods people have used to stop them. But in a really heightened and polarized time of struggle, the stakes are much higher and if the GD was really on the verge of a coup or being invited into the government openly, then it will take more than random street-fighting. If revolution is not immediately possible in that moment, then what is the alternative to a tactical alliance of some kind?

Again, what is your option?

[Ravachol]

In the face of Franco's fascism, the worker's movement was forced to abandon anarchist principles of non-cooperation out of pure necissity for survival.


Yeah, I'd get a history lesson or two mate. The CNT was part of the popular front and its one of its biggest historical mistakes, its precisely the collapse of the revolutionary elan that gave the counter-revolution its lifeblood. Fascism is fought by eroding its organic base: capital. The expansion of the revolution (which obviously contradicts the collaboration with capital, whether it's antifascist left or right wing is irrelevant) is the fight against fascism as it is the fight against capital, at that time taking the particular shape of fascism out of necessity. Choosing to fight a pure 'form' by seeking to appease other forms of capital is not only nonsense its suicide and history shows so.



Though the popular front unity could have some sucess in repelling Franco, the problem was that the worker's movement didn't just tactically ally, but actually then helped the CP who were opposed to revolution for the sake of "unity".

Guess what, that's the deal with popular fronts.



But in a really heightened and polarized time of struggle, the stakes are much higher and if the GD was really on the verge of a coup or being invited into the government openly, then it will take more than random street-fighting. If revolution is not immediately possible in that moment, then what is the alternative to a tactical alliance of some kind?

You don't seem to have a materialist view of the working of fascism but some idealist view that fascism is some system of government willed into existence or coming into existence by chance. Fascism, as a particular form of capital, arises when other forms of management aren't capable of unifying capital and its various categories and providing a necessary shrinking of the middle classes for capital to continue its reproduction. When it arises, it is on the back of a counter-revolutionary wave in response to an already-existing revolutionary alternative.

GD's rise in popularity does not mean fascism is around the corner in Greece, for all means and purposes, however serious, GD acts as a state auxiliary and will remain so. Fighting GD means fighting both the Greek state as its primary patron and fighting the phenomenon of an increasingly proletarianized middle class and precarious proletariat, which is the result of the current phase of capital's restructuring. It means fighting capital, period.

For all your talk about how 'realistic' the popular front is, it is a historical failure and would do more to strangle whatever revolutionary elan there is (and thus the only potential to rob the counter-revolution of its breath and life-force) than 'fight fascism' or blablabla.

[Jimmie Higgins]

^Ok, so no alternative. The same mistake as the CNT.

[Ravachol]

^Ok, so no alternative. The same mistake as the CNT.

The mistake of joining the popular front, abandoning the revolutionary project in the vain hope of fighting fascism on its own terrain? That's hardly what I'm advocating but it seems to fit neatly within your dead-end. If you read my post you will see your 'alternative' right there and if you don't then that's a pity.

What the hell are you even talking about.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The mistake of joining the popular front, abandoning the revolutionary project in the vain hope of fighting fascism on its own terrain? That's hardly what I'm advocating but it seems to fit neatly within your dead-end. If you read my post you will see your 'alternative' right there and if you don't then that's a pity.

What the hell are you even talking about.

Why did the CNT abandon its earlier stated principles according to you? I think they saw a practical need for some kind of united resistance to the attack, but they didn't have past practice or a model for how to deal with this situation and so they ended up merging into the Popular Front, rather than forming something that may have had that tactical usefulness but would have kept the worker and pesant areas and movement independant. If they had tried for a tactical aliance and the weak CP and Popular Front government had rejected demands for independance, well at least it would have shown the working class what side people were really on and if it caused a fight, at least the CNT might have resisted rather than handing the CP the rope to hang the revolution.

At any rate, your alternative is "fight capital"? I assumed that is what we all are trying to do and what the CNT was trying to do. But what about tactically in a situation where there was a serious threat of fascism, there is a worker's movement, but revolution is not actually immidiately likely at that time?

In Spain, there were probably other formations possible for the worker's and pesants revolutionaries because it was a revolution already and there was a high level of development and organization on the one hand and the weakness of the counter-revolutionary actors on the anti-fascist side (the CP and Reformist Socialists) on the other. But the fact is that they felt strongly enough that some kind of tactical formation was a practical necissity in defending against the fasicsts, but because they lacked a clear alternative to popular frontism (I would argue that it would be a united front where the CNT and other revolutionaries do not liquidate their own longer-term aims or their tactics for "unity" if some kind of practical tactical formation was necissary) they ended up not only abandoning their own principles and past practices but helping allow the CP to dismantle the revolution itself.

So if we find ourselves in a sitation where revolution is not immidiatly possible, and revolutionary forces alone can not stop fascists, what is your alternative?



Fascism is fought by eroding its organic base: capital. The expansion of the revolution (which obviously contradicts the collaboration with capital, whether it's antifascist left or right wing is irrelevant) is the fight against fascism as it is the fight against capital, at that time taking the particular shape of fascism out of necessity. Choosing to fight a pure 'form' by seeking to appease other forms of capital is not only nonsense its suicide and history shows so.So your alternative is a non-electoral version of: "First Hitler, then us"? What were you saying about political suicide in historical examples?





Guess what, that's the deal with popular fronts.I don't disagree that Popular Fronts proper are a disaserous strategy, what I am trying to point out is that the useful kernal is the tactical unity when necissary based on the conditions and nature of the threat. The problem with popular fronts is not the tactical unity, but adopting political unity under larger bourgoise or reformist forces.

When some kind of broader fight is a necissity, then I think the unitied front can protentially provide that tactical alliance without erroding political independance in a larger sense.






You don't seem to have a materialist view of the working of fascism but some idealist view that fascism is some system of government willed into existence or coming into existence by chance. Fascism, as a particular form of capital, arises when other forms of management aren't capable of unifying capital and its various categories and providing a necessary shrinking of the middle classes for capital to continue its reproduction. When it arises, it is on the back of a counter-revolutionary wave in response to an already-existing revolutionary alternative.

GD's rise in popularity does not mean fascism is around the corner in Greece, for all means and purposes, however serious, GD acts as a state auxiliary and will remain so. Fighting GD means fighting both the Greek state as its primary patron and fighting the phenomenon of an increasingly proletarianized middle class and precarious proletariat, which is the result of the current phase of capital's restructuring. It means fighting capital, period.
The kind of polarization and class struggle which creates fascist movements does not mean that the working class is necissarily capable or convinced of revolution yet, it doesn't mean that reformists arn't still the driving political ideas in these struggles.

So again, what should revolutionaries do if there is an immediate threat but not immediate possibility for revolution?



For all your talk about how 'realistic' the popular front is, it is a historical failure and would do more to strangle whatever revolutionary elan there is (and thus the only potential to rob the counter-revolution of its breath and life-force) than 'fight fascism' or blablabla.

You continue to argue a staw-man. I only mentioned the popular front because tactically it has pushed back some coup attempts and so on whereas the kind of smaller street-fighting tends only to work while fascists are only trying to gain a foothold rather than a serious threat. I totally agree that ultimately politically it is a dead-end, and I counterpose popular fronts to a united front, but in periods of crisis and polarization when there is a serious threat of fascism becoming the "fix" some kind of tactical formation may be necissary. In this situation, how do we stop the coup so we can continue to fight capital and build up the working class forces rather than end up dead in a ditch?

[Ravachol]

Why did the CNT abandon its earlier stated principles according to you?


Out of a variety of reasons, most of which have been outlined in the text I linked to way up in this thread: http://endnotes.org.uk/texts/endnotes_1/when-insurrections-die.xhtml

The prime reasons being that the CNT was a union and regardless of their ideological credentials or intentions, unions do what unions do and that is remaining trapped within the reproduction of the worker-role as a category of capital. There's a myriad of other reasons but that's been discussed in-detail in the issue of Endnotes where that text is from so I won't repeat that here. Protip: it doesn't have anything to do with 'the CNT seeing the need for united resistance'. You can make up whatever you'd like to project on the CNT but when you don't back it up with historical facts or sources it comes across a little meager.


If they had tried for a tactical aliance and the weak CP and Popular Front government had rejected demands for independance, well at least it would have shown the working class what side people were really on and if it caused a fight, at least the CNT might have resisted rather than handing the CP the rope to hang the revolution.


This doesn't mean anything. I literally have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean.



At any rate, your alternative is "fight capital"? I assumed that is what we all are trying to do and what the CNT was trying to do.


Yeah that's where you're wrong. I don't think the PCE then or the various leftist sects today have any intention to fight capital. What I'm saying though is that popular frontism excludes the possiblity of fighting capital as it diverts the proletarian revolutionary elan towards appeasing one faction (its antifascist but pro-capitalist) of the bourgeoisie.



But what about tactically in a situation where there was a serious threat of fascism, there is a worker's movement, but revolution is not actually immidiately likely at that time?

I keep telling you and I won't repeat this again, that's not how fascism emerges. Your hypothetical roleplaying scenarios are completely idealist.



So your alternative is a non-electoral version of: "First Hitler, then us"? What were you saying about political suicide in historical examples?


If you think that's what I'm saying you should re-read what I wrote again. And again and again if necessary. You're projecting a straw man onto me because you know how to argue against that position. It is, however, not my position.



I don't disagree that Popular Fronts proper are a disaserous strategy, what I am trying to point out is that the useful kernal is the tactical unity when necissary based on the conditions and nature of the threat. The problem with popular fronts is not the tactical unity, but adopting political unity under larger bourgoise or reformist forces.


So you're proposing military/militant cooperation with the antifascist factions of capital without political unity? So that would look something like the expropriation of factories, the looting of stores, the sabotage of infrastructure and police forces, the organisation of strikes in the morning while in the evening approaching a portion of those you aimed your gun at in the morning to stand next to eachother against the 'common fascist threat'? :laugh:



When some kind of broader fight is a necissity, then I think the unitied front can protentially provide that tactical alliance without erroding political independance in a larger sense.


Yeah, except that that's bollocks.



The kind of polarization and class struggle which creates fascist movements does not mean that the working class is necissarily capable or convinced of revolution yet, it doesn't mean that reformists arn't still the driving political ideas in these struggles.


So your answer is a historically bankrupt lesser-evilism by strengthening those very forces you fear have too much of a grip on the proletariat? Give me one historical success story...



So again, what should revolutionaries do if there is an immediate threat but not immediate possibility for revolution?


What is an 'immediate threat'? Capital's existence is always an immediate threat.



You continue to argue a staw-man. I only mentioned the popular front because tactically it has pushed back some coup attempts


That is a dubious claim which I'd like to see you back up. Though you don't have to bother as I'm not concerned with bushing back incidental coup attempts (which is something different from fascism or any transition from one form of capitalism to another) in favor of its liberal variant.



and so on whereas the kind of smaller street-fighting tends only to work while fascists are only trying to gain a foothold rather than a serious threat. I totally agree that ultimately politically it is a dead-end, and I counterpose popular fronts to a united front, but in periods of crisis and polarization when there is a serious threat of fascism becoming the "fix" some kind of tactical formation may be necissary. In this situation, how do we stop the coup so we can continue to fight capital and build up the working class forces rather than end up dead in a ditch?

You have things all mixed up. What is it you're talking about? A military coup? Fascism? A revolutionary situation? General heightened class antagonism? Because all these things are different and your 'argument' rests on some kind of weird cosplay scenario where there's no revolutionary situation but some kind of 'military coup' that comes out of nowhere, without any revolutionary threat, and needs to be fought in favor of liberal democracy. What the hell are we even arguing about?

[Delenda Carthago]

It kinda gives me the chills that I agree with Ravachol.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

It kinda gives me the chills that I agree with Ravachol.

To me it is the gigantic ammount of quoting they he does in his replies that gives me the chills.

[Ravachol]

To me it is the gigantic ammount of quoting they he does in his replies that gives me the chills.

I prefer taking a text apart and addressing points separately and individually before making a conclusion about the whole, it looks kinda messy but I hate to just write big blobs.

[Ocean Seal]

Just one?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I prefer taking a text apart and addressing points separately and individually before making a conclusion about the whole, it looks kinda messy but I hate to just write big blobs.

That would explain why you miss the forrest for the trees and keep arguing on the basis that Popular Frontism lead to betrayals. Yes, I know that and I have argued that here as well. That is the definition of "straw-man". My argument is that sometimes tacticical unity is needed - in this case since Popular Front fails for the reasons you stated (liquidation of the worker's movement behind anti-revolutionary forces) what is your alternative?

You say "fight capital" - yes, but how? Do you think that struggle under fascist control or struggle under a Republic are the same? If so, maybe you should read a book or two, Professor.

What you have been unable to do is provide an alternative method in cases where the revolutionary workers are not the dominant trend but there is an immediate threat of a fascist coup. You call this "roleplaying" but in ALMOST ALL the situations where fasicsim was on the table, it was REFORMIST organizations which were the dominant trend in the worker's movement.

Again, in this case, how should revolutionaries respond? If we fight in smaller groups alone, then divided forces and random street-fighting may not be enought. In addition by fighting alone, most of the workers who want to stop fascism are left to the refomist forces which will probably be ineffective and inherently limited. Maybe some of these workers will see the revolutionary forces and their tactics as superior and be influenced that way, but it would be much more effective IMO, to argue directly that this is the way the formation should go - then workers can see revolutionary tactics proposed next to those of other forces and may be convinced that to defeat fascism we should mobilize the population or whatnot.


Out of a variety of reasons, most of which have been outlined in the text I linked to way up in this thread: http://endnotes.org.uk/texts/endnotes_1/when-insurrections-die.xhtml

The prime reasons being that the CNT was a union and regardless of their ideological credentials or intentions, unions do what unions do and that is remaining trapped within the reproduction of the worker-role as a category of capital. There's a myriad of other reasons but that's been discussed in-detail in the issue of Endnotes where that text is from so I won't repeat that here. Protip: it doesn't have anything to do with 'the CNT seeing the need for united resistance'. You can make up whatever you'd like to project on the CNT but when you don't back it up with historical facts or sources it comes across a little meager.The CNT had a non-coorperation position which they then abandoned when confronted by a fascist attack - because they were a union? No, you taking some other argument about the CNT and applying it ill-fittingly to this situation. Their own beurocratic tendencies due to being a union are just a general thing, not the reason they specifically sought unity and joined the Popular Front. But the same beurocratic tendencies also caused them to act sectarian in other instances.


Yeah that's where you're wrong. I don't think the PCE then or the various leftist sects today have any intention to fight capital. What I'm saying though is that popular frontism excludes the possiblity of fighting capital as it diverts the proletarian revolutionary elan towards appeasing one faction (its antifascist but pro-capitalist) of the bourgeoisie.Yes, this is why I favor united fronts when tactical unitiy is necissary. The argument ISN'T OVER POPULAR FRONTISM, the argument is how to respond to a specific threat by fascism. "Fight Capital" is the goal, not a tactic, I am asking what tactic Greek worker's should adopt should things intensify and fascism becomes a possibility before worker's are actually able and willing to take over running things themselves.


I keep telling you and I won't repeat this again, that's not how fascism emerges. Your hypothetical roleplaying scenarios are completely idealist.So there has never been a fascist coup attempt or rise to power that has happened when most worker's supported refomist parties?


If you think that's what I'm saying you should re-read what I wrote again. And again and again if necessary. You're projecting a straw man onto me because you know how to argue against that position. It is, however, not my position.AND WHAT IS YOUR POSITION? Again, as far as I can tell your position is "no position" - to "fight capital" - but how in an immediate threat of fascist coup or entry into the government?


So you're proposing military/militant cooperation with the antifascist factions of capital without political unity? So that would look something like the expropriation of factories, the looting of stores, the sabotage of infrastructure and police forces, the organisation of strikes in the morning while in the evening approaching a portion of those you aimed your gun at in the morning to stand next to eachother against the 'common fascist threat'? :laugh:If the worker's movement is in a position of just having liberation, then I'd assume that the ruling class was unable to rule and so they would have no defense anyway - it's a moot argument at that point. But what if worker's are not yet willing or in a position to begin liberation? What if most are in social-democratic parties and the trade-unions are in charge of the resistance?

You call this "hypothetical" but this has generally been the case.


Yeah, except that that's bollocks.Convincing argument there.


So your answer is a historically bankrupt lesser-evilism by strengthening those very forces you fear have too much of a grip on the proletariat? Give me one historical success story...Give me the quote where I argue in favor of the popular front. I only argued that in some cases tactical unity may become necissary - if one agrees that established fascism is worse for the worker's movement than an unstable bourgoise democracy - when there is an IMMEDIATE threat but no IMMEDIATE chance for worker's revolution. And yes, I know that fascism arrises in POLARIZED situations, but having the conditions for revolution in a general sense, doesn't mean the class is actually automatically able to self-emancipate.


What is an 'immediate threat'? Capital's existence is always an immediate threat.First Hitler, then US!

So you don't agree that fascism is essentially the direct repression of all working class organization and is more dangerous than typical bourgoise republics? Then why do the bourgoise support fascists typically when the republic is unable to contain the worker's movement? Fascism is not the same as organizing in even extra-oppressive bourgoise democracies.


That is a dubious claim which I'd like to see you back up. Though you don't have to bother as I'm not concerned with bushing back incidental coup attempts (which is something different from fascism or any transition from one form of capitalism to another) in favor of its liberal variant.Yes, Popular Fronts bury independant worker's aims. This is why I support organizational independance if a tactical alliance is necissary.

You just ignore all history and say that there is never a need for tactical alliances and never a time when fascism becomes an immediate threat but worker's are unprepared for self-liberation.


You have things all mixed up. What is it you're talking about? A military coup? Fascism? A revolutionary situation? General heightened class antagonism? Because all these things are different and your 'argument' rests on some kind of weird cosplay scenario where there's no revolutionary situation but some kind of 'military coup' that comes out of nowhere, without any revolutionary threat, and needs to be fought in favor of liberal democracy. What the hell are we even arguing about?

A revolutionary situation does not mean that workers are capable of actually taking over society at a drop of a hat. Revolutionary situations occuour all the time with reformist or nationalist or some other form of politics being dominant among the movements. If fail to see how this is "cosplay" - it seems that you are really the one trying to fit history around some ideological constructions: deneying that fascism has come to power when workers were not immediately able to form a revolution, denying that a republic and fascist society are different at all in terms of condtions for class struggle.

You have argued against Popular Frontism and I essentially agree 100% with your analysis of the inherent political problems for the worker's movement. Where I don't agree is that there is never a case where some kind of tactical alliance may be necissary. In such a situation I think that revolutionaries should only have these alliances based on limited immediate aims, and that the condition of the "front" is political independance. In this way there is the practical advantage of a larger force when the revolutionary forces are more divided or smaller than the reformists (which is often the case) and additionally there is an advantage of being able to argue for a revolutionary solution to the larger crisis even while responding to the immediate crisis of some kind of fascist riot or attack or coup. EDIT: and if this condition of independance is rejected by the reformist forces and trade unions etc, then the revolutionary forces are more or less in the same position you argue for anyway but at least in this scenerio, the reformists will have been exposed as prizing property over a real struggle against fascism.

Again, I only brought up the Popular Front in terms of the fact that tactical unitiy HAS worked in some instances - this is why the CPs were able to sell the strategy to theri supporters after going around calling everyone else fascist for a number of years. They instited it was the "only way" but they were on the wrong class side and their interest in "unity" was beyond tactical for defeating the immediate threat and more about securing allies for Russia among the big capitalist powers.

If we find ourselves in a situation where an immediate tactical alliance is necissary, then I propose a united front strategy as a way to stop the immediate uprising or attack and in the longer term help the worker's movement move towards conditions which will make it more possible to "fight capital". Stopping a fascist power-grab would be "fighting capital" - it would be fighting their most extreme repressive measure for restoring order, and if the revolutionary workers do this in a way that shows that only liberation will "fix" the problems of capitalism that led to fascism even being an option.

[Ravachol]

You're just repeating the same stuff over and over again without substantiating any of it or providing any tangible historical examples to back up your claims so I'll keep this short as you seem not really interested in engaging the arguments and moreso in tendency patriotism and defending the ideological capital of the tendency your choosing.

For what its worth:



You say "fight capital" - yes, but how? Do you think that struggle under fascist control or struggle under a Republic are the same? If so, maybe you should read a book or two, Professor.


Don't twist my words. I never said its the same. As for fighting capital, well, in whatever ways that manifests itself at that particular historical juncture, I'm not some nerd who believes pro-revs have to lay down blueprints for every possible historical scenario I can't tell how the revolutionary movement will manifest itself. This obviously excludes collaboration with the bourgeoisie. I don't see how that's so hard to understand.



What you have been unable to do is provide an alternative method in cases where the revolutionary workers are not the dominant trend but there is an immediate threat of a fascist coup.


Name one such example. Besides, a 'fascist coup' isn't different from any reactionary type of coup. Fascism manifests itself as a mass-movement and that's qualitatively different from a coup. So what is it you're trying to argue about, fighting fascism or 'fighting coups'? If its the latter, i'm not that interested and I don't see how it warrants 'tactical unity' with some faction of the bourgeoisie either way.



You call this "roleplaying" but in ALMOST ALL the situations where fasicsim was on the table, it was REFORMIST organizations which were the dominant trend in the worker's movement.


Yeah, totally. There's no such thing as the German revolutionary movement of 1918-1922, the Italian Bienno Rosso or the aborted Spanish revolution. Reformism dominated all those periods! :laugh:



If we fight in smaller groups alone, then divided forces and random street-fighting may not be enought. In addition by fighting alone, most of the workers who want to stop fascism are left to the refomist forces which will probably be ineffective and inherently limited.


Why are reformists less capable of fighting a coup (since its a coup you're talking about as nobody is capable of fighting fascism without fighting capital) than pro-revs? They've done just fine historically in that regard.



The CNT had a non-coorperation position which they then abandoned when confronted by a fascist attack - because they were a union?


lolwat. Get your history straight. The biggest revolutionary push by the proletariat organised within the CNT was made in the direct aftermath of the fascist coup attempt. It was the CNT's structural inability to go beyond partial self-management of capitalism coupled with the leadership's unionist mentality of negotiation that led them to the popular front. Its not as if the revolution was an obstacle to fighting fascism which they had to abandon for some lesser-evilist appeasement of the republican bourgeoisie in order to stop Franco. Because if that's the case, they did a pretty shitty job.



No, you taking some other argument about the CNT and applying it ill-fittingly to this situation. Their own beurocratic tendencies due to being a union are just a general thing, not the reason they specifically sought unity and joined the Popular Front. But the same beurocratic tendencies also caused them to act sectarian in other instances.


Yeah none of this means anything. Seriously what are you arguing here?



"Fight Capital" is the goal, not a tactic


No its not, its both. If you don't understand how that's the case I, again, advise you to re-read both my post and the text by Dauve I linked to.



I am asking what tactic Greek worker's should adopt should things intensify and fascism becomes a possibility before worker's are actually able and willing to take over running things themselves.


Fascism won't be a possibility before a serious revolutionary threat is on the table. A coup perhaps or a particular authoritarian shift in the administration of capital's current incarnation. But not fascism. You don't seem to understand the difference between the two and seem to think 'authoritarian right wing = fascism'. If a coup or technocratic authoritarian regime change is on the table I don't see how cooperation with the left wing of capital is gonna do anything about that though. "BUT WUT IF WE ALL CUMZ TOGETHER!!" isn't much of an argument in that regard.



AND WHAT IS YOUR POSITION? Again, as far as I can tell your position is "no position" - to "fight capital" - but how in an immediate threat of fascist coup or entry into the government?


Why are you so fucking obsessed with a fascist party gaining seats or some coup as opposed to capital in general? A fascist mass-movement is not on the table right now so this discussion makes little sense.



But what if worker's are not yet willing or in a position to begin liberation? What if most are in social-democratic parties and the trade-unions are in charge of the resistance?

You call this "hypothetical" but this has generally been the case.


Care to back up that load of bollocks?



if one agrees that established fascism is worse for the worker's movement than an unstable bourgoise democracy - when there is an IMMEDIATE threat but no IMMEDIATE chance for worker's revolution.


You act like the tactical choice of pro-rev collaboration with capital's left wing has any impact on the stability of bourgeois democracy. If anything, what you're effectively arguing for is stabilising bourgeois democracy in order to prevent it from taking on the shape of fascism. Which is not a possibility through 'tactical unity' with some faction of the bourgeoisie or whatever. One, just one historical example would be great though.



And yes, I know that fascism arrises in POLARIZED situations, but having the conditions for revolution in a general sense, doesn't mean the class is actually automatically able to self-emancipate.


Yeah go spew your 'those dumb workers aren't capable of self-emancipation yet' bollocks somewhere else.



First Hitler, then US!


Take a chill pill, or a book on weimar history and then come back again and realise how stupid you sound.



Yes, Popular Fronts bury independant worker's aims. This is why I support organizational independance if a tactical alliance is necissary.


Which is an impossibility.



You just ignore all history and say that there is never a need for tactical alliances and never a time when fascism becomes an immediate threat but worker's are unprepared for self-liberation.


History is on my side in this case, not yours.



Revolutionary situations occuour all the time with reformist or nationalist or some other form of politics being dominant among the movements.


Then you and I strongly disagree on what constitutes a 'revolutionary situation'.



deneying that fascism has come to power when workers were not immediately able to form a revolution, denying that a republic and fascist society are different at all in terms of condtions for class struggle.


Fascism has historically sprung up in the wake of failed revolutionary waves, not by chance and not in the face of just a sharpening of class antagonisms. There was no fascist threat in Germany or France in '68 despite the sharpening antagonisms precisely because there was no necessity on part of Capital to re-integrate a segment of itself (in the form of part of the capital-category labor) into a new unity nor was there a need for a shrinking of the middle classes. In the most extreme cases, authoritarian coups, extensive black ops (such as Gladio) or counter-insurgency operations that fit with any liberal democracy sufficed which is a different beast altogether. What proved most effective, however, was good old leftist recuperation.



You have argued against Popular Frontism and I essentially agree 100% with your analysis of the inherent political problems for the worker's movement. Where I don't agree is that there is never a case where some kind of tactical alliance may be necissary. In such a situation I think that revolutionaries should only have these alliances based on limited immediate aims, and that the condition of the "front" is political independance.


This is a complete impossibility. What you're saying is that in the event of:

a) an absence of any revolutionary situation
b) the presence of the threat of a coup (which is not the same as a transition to fascism, which springs from conditions contradicting a)
c) the dominance of reformist (at most) factions and ideas among the proletariat

Then 'revolutionaries' should maintain 'political independence' but strive for 'tactical unity'. The thing is, in such a scenario there's no such thing as revolutionaries. Not you, not your club and not me. At most we're pro-revolutionaries (ie. striving for something we aren't capable of achieving at that moment) and what we do or don't do is of miniscule impact upon the general situation. In such a scenario, pro-revolutionaries are a minority who's weight won't tip the scales and who's political independence can't be maintained in the face of 'tactical unity' and that wouldn't matter anyway since that political independence is nothing but words. In such a scenario there's probably even less reason to consider collaboration with the leftist bourgeoisie (who I doubt would be interested in pro-revs anyway) as that would simply mean joining their camp without even contributing anything of significance.



there is an advantage of being able to argue for a revolutionary solution to the larger crisis even while responding to the immediate crisis of some kind of fascist riot or attack or coup.


An 'advantage' which you don't have if you don't give two shits about what capital's left-wing does? Besides, what exactly do you get out of arguing in favor of the 'revolutionary alternative' if, in your words in this scenario, its not on the table anyway? If it were on the table and could be as the result of this 'arguing', then my positions hold, not yours.



Again, I only brought up the Popular Front in terms of the fact that tactical unitiy HAS worked in some instances


What instances? I asked for examples but got none...



If we find ourselves in a situation where an immediate tactical alliance is necissary, then I propose a united front strategy as a way to stop the immediate uprising or attack and in the longer term help the worker's movement move towards conditions which will make it more possible to "fight capital".


The efforts of some little sect or groupuscule or, even worse, union or party don't create the conditions where its 'possible to fight capital'. That is, unless you buy into idealism.



Stopping a fascist power-grab would be "fighting capital"


Not at all. It would be fighting (in vain) one form of capital in favor of the other.



- it would be fighting their most extreme repressive measure for restoring order, and if the revolutionary workers do this in a way that shows that only liberation will "fix" the problems of capitalism that led to fascism even being an option.

Yet you claim that such a solution is 'not on the table', which is the whole premise of your point. Besides, what would 'fighting fascism together with the leftist bourgeoisie in a way that demonstrates only revolution can stop fascism' even look like? You're literally proposing doing something to show that only something else can work.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

If the anti-fascists are already mobilizing on their own terms as it is I don't see what function a popular front would serve anyhow. If the groups eventually end up confronting one another that will be proof that their aims were not the same in the first place.

[Comrade Nasser]

Cops, Nazis, what's the difference? Same shit, different uniform.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If the anti-fascists are already mobilizing on their own terms as it is I don't see what function a popular front would serve anyhow. If the groups eventually end up confronting one another that will be proof that their aims were not the same in the first place.

Well in the situation as it is now, there is no immediate threat of fascists taking power and so popular front/united front tactics are a moot point for now. However, should "normal" opposition methods fail, radicals should and will group into a larger formations to resist all-out front-on attack. If they have a scatter-shot and divided resistance, most likely any organized groups will be destroyed and any well-know individual militants. If the workers movement joins a popular front and subordinates itself to the anti-fascist bourgeois forces, they may achieve a tactical victory, but the general threat of fascism will remain because in a period of class struggle, the ruling class still needs to figure out how to suppress resistance anyway and this and the crisis will always give fascists another "in" eventually. My arguement is if a front is a tactical necessity, then a united front method has the potential to have the benefit of the practical unity in opposition to the fascists and political independence which allows for more debate about tactics and aims and give a smaller revolutionary worker's movement hearing among anti-fascist workers who are still drawn to or organized by the trade unions and Left reformist groups.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You're just repeating the same stuff over and over again without substantiating any of it or providing any tangible historical examples to back up your claims so I'll keep this short as you seem not really interested in engaging the arguments and moreso in tendency patriotism and defending the ideological capital of the tendency your choosing.First - "short"?

Second, I keep going "around and around" because you have not actually responded to any questions or arguments or presented any counter-arguments - you have only responded with simple negatives without a positive counter, condescension, and deflection.

In response to someone saying that if things got worse in Greece the left should get together, people responded "No", but no one has offered an alternative to this. You have argued that in that case we should "fight capital" but this is what we are presumably trying to do already and so inherent in the question of "what should we do if this situation got worse" is the assumption that "fighting capital" was not enough in of itself.

Thrid, "tendency patriotism" has nothing to do with it - I'm arguing for a united front which is a tactic used by my tendency, yes, but my concern is not having workers and immigrants locked into containers and dropped off a pier by fascists. On the other hand, you seem to be more interested in your "political purity" to the point where you deny all historical example and try and fit them around your view of the world. It's the non-party flip-side of the organizational sectarianism of the KKE: you write off any worker in a trade union for not having your politics, and they write off any worker not organized under them for being in the wrong organization.

It's bullshit, and if shit today gets worse, these types of attitudes and the idea that we can continue to just street-fight as sects at the point when fascism is immediately on the table is poison that will end in bloodshed and the smashing of any resistance. Of course tactical resistance is not enough in the long-run and so we must continue to try and develop confidence and confidence and self-organization among workers and so this would be why I favor an arrangement where political independence is maintained but temporary tactical arrangements are possible if some sort of practical unity is needed.


As for fighting capital, well, in whatever ways that manifests itself at that particular historical juncture, I'm not some nerd who believes pro-revs have to lay down blueprints for every possible historical scenario I can't tell how the revolutionary movement will manifest itself. This obviously excludes collaboration with the bourgeoisie. I don't see how that's so hard to understand.You just lay down blueprints for some historical scenarios, right? I mean, what informs you that radicals should not work with bourgeois forces? "Roll-playing" (or "trying to learn from history" as I call it) isn't it? So why are your theories valid but mine are "tendency patriotism" and "nerd roll-playing"? You obviously don't think a front of any kind is valid - how do you come to this conclusion without looking at history, "roll-playing," eh?

Why can't you be upfront? Why must every question I make be deflected and condescendingly attacked. You are all criticism with no alternative. It's a safe position to take while being anonymous on the internet, I guess - one is never wrong if they never put forth an argument in favor of anything.


Name one such example....Of a place where facism has come to power while the dominant trend and forces in the workers movement were reformist? Germany... Italy, Hungary, and pretty much everywhere besides Spain.


Besides, a 'fascist coup' isn't different from any reactionary type of coup. Fascism manifests itself as a mass-movement and that's qualitatively different from a coup. So what is it you're trying to argue about, fighting fascism or 'fighting coups'? If its the latter, i'm not that interested and I don't see how it warrants 'tactical unity' with some faction of the bourgeoisie either way.Fighting an immediate threat of fascist assent to power - this can be a coup or some other crisis where they are then allowed into the government. Most likely either way there will be a sizable opposition - the question is, how should radicals and radical forces relate to the larger opposition that may still be organized through trade unions or non-revolutionary groups?

Ironically, your "non-position" effects the SAME RESULT of a popular front where the radical worker groups suppress their aims and criticisms for blanket unity. If the radical forces are enough to mount their own limited defense, but not enough to defeat the bourgoise, then what is accomplished: a weaker resistance to the fascist riot or power-grab and the workers organized by the reformist groups are not given any other political options and no alternatives to the reformist front. Since many well-meaning and potentially radicalized workers will want to stop fascism, a non-strategy by radicals means that workers who may have a good sense of class and politics will simply join the forces "most likely to succeed".


Yeah, totally. There's no such thing as the German revolutionary movement of 1918-1922, the Italian Bienno Rosso or the aborted Spanish revolution. Reformism dominated all those periods! :laugh:For the most part, yes, reformist organizations and politics were more dominant... or did you think workers ran those societies at the time that fascists took power? That the German socialists were dominated by ideas like those of Rosa Luxembourg and not of reformists and their more established organizations.

In Italy, the 2 red years (1918-1920) happened 2 years BEFORE the real mass support for fascists. When the factory takeovers had been put down, the Fascists were still a regional phenomena and had only a couple thousand members at most - a year or two after the two red years they allied with social conservatives and they grew in numbers to a quarter million or so. The grain of truth is that these years were years when "anything could happen" and a revolutionary movement could have come out on top, but that movement didn't exist anymore when the fascists marched on Rome and were given the keys to the country.

The German revolution likewise was attacked by Freicorps, who eventually became the foot-soldiers for fascism, but were paramilitaries at that point. And at any rate, despite the action and aims of workers themselves after WWI, they still were largely under reformist leadership and though they wanted revolution, the reformist leadership successfully argued to put the breaks on. So again, it is a case where most of the actors in the struggle are influenced by reformist ideas.

Then there's a whole bunch of other places in middle and eastern Europe where there were coups and attacks by quazi-fascist monarchist groups and so on and reformist ideas tended to dominate those worker's movements as well.

Spain had the best shot because the worker's uprising actually did happen along with the fascist uprising, rather than before or after. In the first months, the liberated areas under more or less worker and peasant management, though still officially "republic". IMO many of the anarchist leaders did have the right ideas - even if they came too late, like Derrutti. I don't know what would have happened if the worker's movement had just gone-it-alone, but it probably would not have been worse than what did happen... and even if they had tried for a united front, I doubt that the Stalinist would have gone for it anyway. Probably in this case, the revolutionaries would have had to have a "battle on two fronts" (fascists and the Republic) and they may have been able to split support in Republican areas bringing more workers over to supporting the revolution while driving some other middle class people over to Franco. So Spain is different because there was an immediate chance for Revolution at that point.


Why are reformists less capable of fighting a coup (since its a coup you're talking about as nobody is capable of fighting fascism without fighting capital) than pro-revs? They've done just fine historically in that regard.Because they want to stop Fascism, but also protect the system and conditions which allowed it to even become a possibility. Wiemar could not "fix" the problems in Germany, the Republic could not "fix" the bind Spain was in because the ruling classes needed to suppress the population and when they couldn't do so without a large amount of resistance from workers, then a faction of them supported a much more drastic option in supporting Fascism as a popular counter-force. Spain was similar.

And also, in both cases, the reformist forces - since they in the very most argue for a kind of slow-motion liberation - can not offer a real alternative to the population itself which creates a sort sense among people that you can have Franco's repression or the Republics Repression/ You can have Hitlers repression or Wiemar's depression. This can help the fascists become a more popular draw in a cynical way while at the same time making the resistance a force for "status-quo" in a crisis situation.

A liberation force of workers can promise much more and thereby undercut any popular support for fascism through a working class solution to the larger crisis - but my argument is that often these liberatory ideas and tactics are in the minority and most workers who want to stop a fascist uprising, will probably be organized by and through reformist groups and unions. In this case, I think radical forces should attempt something like a united front in order to have the practical advantage of a force large enough to stop a vigilante riot or coup by fascists while also having a larger platform to argue for revolutionary strategies and aims in an actual struggle where such things will be of the highest importance.


lolwat. Get your history straight. The biggest revolutionary push by the proletariat organised within the CNT was made in the direct aftermath of the fascist coup attempt. It was the CNT's structural inability to go beyond partial self-management of capitalism coupled with the leadership's unionist mentality of negotiation that led them to the popular front. Its not as if the revolution was an obstacle to fighting fascism which they had to abandon for some lesser-evilist appeasement of the republican bourgeoisie in order to stop Franco. Because if that's the case, they did a pretty shitty job.In never argued that the Revolution was a barrier to anything, it was the way forward and the kinds of tactics and initiative done in response to the threat is what was necessary to win the revolution and stop the fascist forces. The problem that I was talking about was that they had a totally sectarian relationship to other left forces before the revolution and then when they felt they needed a tactical alliance, rather than doing so conditionally, they unwound the revolution in order to have "unity" with the anti-revolutionary Stalinists and the Social-Dems.


No its not, its both. If you don't understand how that's the case I, again, advise you to re-read both my post and the text by Dauve I linked to.If you can't explain something, don't link to it.


Fascism won't be a possibility before a serious revolutionary threat is on the table.A serious revolutionary thread dose not mean that workers will AT THE MOMENT OF FASCIST CHOOSING be able to mount a revolutionary, liberatory response. What itallian workers could do in 1919 is not the same as what they could do in 1921, what Spanish revolutionaries could do in Barcelona in one month was not the same as they could do after several months. A general "revolutionary period" means that socialism or barbarism are on the table in general, but it doesn't mean that either are imminent at the same exact time or that their forces are equal or that our class forces are organized to take over society.


A coup perhaps or a particular authoritarian shift in the administration of capital's current incarnation. But not fascism. You don't seem to understand the difference between the two and seem to think 'authoritarian right wing = fascism'.No I never argued that and have said. You seem to think that "negation" is the same as putting forth an argument.


If a coup or technocratic authoritarian regime change is on the table I don't see how cooperation with the left wing of capital is gonna do anything about that though. "BUT WUT IF WE ALL CUMZ TOGETHER!!" isn't much of an argument in that regard. And your argument is......... oh yeah you have none! But then when you are called on it, you just respond with insults and negation of other options. Well, fine, I've made my argument which you've twisted and nit-picked and straw-maned to the point where you are arguing against the SAME THINGS I said were inherently flawed or didn't work, and yet you have nothing as an alternative.

Do what we are doing! Yeah that worked great in Germany and Italy.


Why are you so fucking obsessed with a fascist party gaining seats or some coup as opposed to capital in general? A fascist mass-movement is not on the table right now so this discussion makes little sense.I'm not obsessed, someone said that if things get worse and the fascists gain more ground, the Left should unite in opposition. I agree IF there was an immediate threat. I don't think we need to form an anti-fascist front right now, maybe something like that would be goof in Greece, but I don't know the terrain of the left there in much specifics and so I trust that folks are doing what they can and I think the opposition we have seen has been encouraging.

But in response to the comment about "uniting" if there was some attack, you and another poster essentially said: "That's stupid". I'm "obsessed" with getting a clear alternative from you folks.


Care to back up that load of bollocks?Simple negation


Yeah go spew your 'those dumb workers aren't capable of self-emancipation yet' bollocks somewhere else.Insult and also negation with no alternative.


Take a chill pill, or a book on weimar history and then come back again and realise how stupid you sound.Negation and insult and appealing to authority again eh, Prof.


Which is an impossibility.Negation


History is on my side in this case, not yours."No YOU are" negation.


Then you and I strongly disagree on what constitutes a 'revolutionary situation'.In other words: "No" is your response yet again.


Fascism has historically sprung up in the wake of failed revolutionary waves, not by chance and not in the face of just a sharpening of class antagonisms. There was no fascist threat in Germany or France in '68 despite the sharpening antagonisms precisely because there was no necessity on part of Capital to re-integrate a segment of itself (in the form of part of the capital-category labor) into a new unity nor was there a need for a shrinking of the middle classes. In the most extreme cases, authoritarian coups, extensive black ops (such as Gladio) or counter-insurgency operations that fit with any liberal democracy sufficed which is a different beast altogether. What proved most effective, however, was good old leftist recuperation.I am not talking about a top-down repressive reorganization in this case, but Fascism, like you said. In such as case preventing "Leftist recuperation" is exactly why Fascism was favored and supported - there is no recuperation of the workers movement if it has been smashed and fascists are our on the streets.



This is a complete impossibility. What you're saying is that in the event of:

a) an absence of any revolutionary situation
b) the presence of the threat of a coup (which is not the same as a transition to fascism, which springs from conditions contradicting a)
c) the dominance of reformist (at most) factions and ideas among the proletariatAgain, simple negation. Also just incorrect:

a) I have said repeatedly that a "revolutionary situation" is not the same as a imminent Revolution. Egypt is in a "revolutionary situation" and Greece to a lesser extent, but it doesn't mean that workers are thinking they should directly run society for the most part - most are still behind some kind of reformist ideas. Should the crisis deepen and continue, meaning that neither the working class nor the bourgoise establish "stable" hegemony, then I could see the possibility of a fascist sort of "solution" to this.
b)Yes I am speaking of tactics in response to a direct and immediate threat - such as the riots in Paris by fascists, the coup attempts by fascists in Latin America and Eastern Europe, the entry into the government in other cases during such riots or fascist marches and occupations.
c) if most workers were consciously fighting for themselves, then much of this wouldn't really apply. But often there has been revolutionary sentiment without the full ability to take over. The German workers had several revolutions and so were objectively "revolutionary" but subjectively had not learned that the reformists had nothing to offer.


An 'advantage' which you don't have if you don't give two shits about what capital's left-wing does? Besides, what exactly do you get out of arguing in favor of the 'revolutionary alternative' if, in your words in this scenario, its not on the table anyway? If it were on the table and could be as the result of this 'arguing', then my positions hold, not yours.Because the point isn't making nice with the leaders of non-revolutionay forces, but with the tons of workers who want an end to the crisis, see the threat of fascism, etc, but are still organized by and largely still adopt a view of liberal social-dems and what not.



Not at all. It would be fighting (in vain) one form of capital in favor of the other.So now you're back to arguing that bourgoise republics and fascism are more or less the same for class struggle? When I asked you that last time you said "Bullocks" or something to that effect and denied it.


Yet you claim that such a solution is 'not on the table', which is the whole premise of your point. Besides, what would 'fighting fascism together with the leftist bourgeoisie in a way that demonstrates only revolution can stop fascism' even look like? You're literally proposing doing something to show that only something else can work.Not IMMEDIATELY on the table doesn't mean it's not possible at all. The premise of my argument is that not all workers suddenly become revolutionary when it is immediately historically necessary to do so; that will or desire for revoltion doesn't mean the class can automatically achieve it or that the pro-revolution workers will even be in formations that want to smash capitalism (or even realize at the time that the reformist party or union has limitations and may not actually want to see revolution). You seem to deney that that is ever the case, that those who are on our side and part of our class might tend to be drawn to reformist forces before they are fully convinced of revolution.

[No_Leaders]

My head hurts from these crazy back and fourth arguments :scared: Anyways sounds like the the antifa's are taking matters into their own hand in regards to defending/fighting GD members.

[Jimmie Higgins]

My head hurts from these crazy back and fourth arguments :scared: Anyways sounds like the the antifa's are taking matters into their own hand in regards to defending/fighting GD members.

LOL, sorry.

[MP5]

Good job guys on kicking some Nazi scumbag ass :). Anarchists and Communists of all types need to take a first strike policy when dealing with fascists. They are nothing but mad dogs and like any mad dog you have to put them down.

Smashing up a cop is just a added bonus. There's nothing like a proper scrap with the pigs :D

[LiveOnYourFeet]

A cop happened to be a Golden Dawn member? Wow, I was totally not expecting that!