militant anti-fascism discussion (split from murdered french anti-fascist thread) [Archive]

Lucretia

6th June 2013, 20:58

but there is, and always have been a physical conflict with the fash, in some places lower intesity than others, in some places armed and some not but there is just no way fascists and revolutionairies can co-exist, clashes happen, people get killed, mostly people like you dont notice it because you are either not their primary target (not black, not queer, not homeless, not handicapped, nor not female enough) or because there are militant anti-fascists who step up and take the heat. but yeah, there is war going on, it has always been going on and people are getting killed. there has been multiple attempts to seriously hurt or kill me and i live in a low intensity area, comrades in russia and poland are getting attacked weekly and killed at an alarming rate.
I hope all people who get into anti-fascist politics are conscious of it, it shouldn't discourage them, it should ENcourage them but yes, it happens and we better recognize it.

Apparently my point did not register. Allow me to restate it more pointedly. Saying there have always been and always will be low-level physical and violent confrontations between leftists and reactionaries does not warrant celebratory grandiose metaphors about fallen soldiers and wars. Much of it is defensive violence brought on by being targeted by reactionaries, and simply cannot be avoided. But that is different than celebrating it as some integral and desirable part of the current phase of struggle, something that should be honored and celebrated as if it were reasonable and normal. You might live for this kind of paramilitary shit (and I would be remiss if I didn't note that people who tend to be the loudest chest-thumpers about this shit are the ones farthest from engaging in it). But from my perspective, the young man's death is a waste of life, a waste of talent, and potentially the waste of a lifetime of good revolutionary activism. At this low level of class struggle, nothing is advanced by violent clashes with right-wing morons. To think it does serve a purpose shows how far removed a person's politics is from class struggle, and how wedded it is to idealist adventurism and lame Hollywood movies.

The Douche

6th June 2013, 21:04

He said an article critical of the victim made a valid point, then expanded on his "valid point" claim by saying that if you're involved in anti-fascist organizations, you need to know what you're getting involved in. How, exactly, is this implying that the individual was fully aware of what he was getting involved in?

And what's with this lame-ass comic book paramilitary language? This is the perfect example of anarchists not being able to distinguish stages in a class struggle. In case you haven't realized it yet, there aren't armed masses of workers taking to the streets to challenge the state. The "class war" continues, but hasn't come close to reaching the point of open armed conflict against the bourgeoisie. As such, this murder is a crime, not a fallen foot soldier in some armed conflict with the bourgeois state and its supporters, fascist or otherwise.

I said, to this audience here (revolutionaries supposedly) that they should check themselves into reality. The death of one of our comrades is an outrage, but it is not outrageous, in fact, it is to be expected that we (as militants of the class) will suffer casualties (injured, imprisoned, and yes, killed) at the hands of the state and para-military forces (like the fascists).

Furthermore, this language is not "paramilitary" it is also not "military" in nature, though it is martial. And you can deny the present condition of things if you like, but all that does is leave you ill-prepared. War is waging, we are in the thick of it, as a communist you have chosen sides in it. Violence is brought to you every day unless you live a really privileged existence (which I doubt), the presence of the police in our neighborhoods is the presence of an occupying army, the surveillance state turns our blocks into prison wards, and we constantly have the threat of unemployment held over our heads to ensure our compliance, all these things are violent, and we as communists fight against them (in one way or another, and if you don't, then I don't believe you're a communist).

War does not necessarily mean a contest of arms.

This article deals with the issue of rethinking what role we're actually playing in the unfolding struggle that is communism or whatever:

http://theanvilreview.org/print/aufhebengate/

This quote alludes to what I am discussing, and maybe will help you understand that you're misrepresenting my position:

"This is not a question of social drama or political affinity, rather, this incident comes to illustrate an almost complete inability on the part of some so-called “radicals” to understand the stakes and risks involved in insurgency, and a seeming inability to even think of themselves in this light, choosing, seemingly, to regress back into the roll of activists."

The Douche

6th June 2013, 21:05

Apparently my point did not register. Allow me to restate it more pointedly. Saying there have always been and always will be low-level physical and violent confrontations between leftists and reactionaries does not warrant celebratory grandiose metaphors about fallen soldiers and wars. Much of it is defensive violence brought on by being targeted by reactionaries, and simply cannot be avoided. But that is different than celebrating it as some integral and desirable part of the current phase of struggle, something that should be honored and celebrated as if it were reasonable and normal. You might live for this kind of paramilitary shit (and I would be remiss if I didn't note that people who tend to be the loudest chest-thumpers about this shit are the ones farthest from engaging in it). But from my perspective, the young man's death is a waste of life, a waste of talent, and potentially the waste of a lifetime of good revolutionary activism. At this low level of class struggle, nothing is advanced by violent clashes with right-wing morons. To think it does serve a purpose shows how far removed a person's politics is from class struggle, and how wedded it is to idealist adventurism and lame Hollywood movies.

You know I am an actual combat veteran, right? (not that combat in that sense has anything to really do with what I'm talking about)

Lucretia

6th June 2013, 21:12

I said, to this audience here (revolutionaries supposedly) that they should check themselves into reality. The death of one of our comrades is an outrage, but it is not outrageous, in fact, it is to be expected that we (as militants of the class) will suffer casualties (injured, imprisoned, and yes, killed) at the hands of the state and para-military forces (like the fascists).

Wait: don't you mean para-martial forces? (Fap fap fap) Seriously, give me a fucking break. It is not to be expected, unless you honestly think we are in the midst of a stage of armed class struggle. Which any objective observer can see is nonsense. It was a crime committed by a member of a fringe political community against a member of a different fringe (leftist) community. Even in the context of interactions between members of those fringe communities, it is not a common occurrence and shouldn't be "expected."

Furthermore, this language is not "paramilitary" it is also not "military" in nature, though it is martial. And you can deny the present condition of things if you like, but all that does is leave you ill-prepared. War is waging, we are in the thick of it, as a communist you have chosen sides in it. Violence is brought to you every day unless you live a really privileged existence (which I doubt), the presence of the police in our neighborhoods is the presence of an occupying army, the surveillance state turns our blocks into prison wards, and we constantly have the threat of unemployment held over our heads to ensure our compliance, all these things are violent, and we as communists fight against them (in one way or another, and if you don't, then I don't believe you're a communist).Yes, have fun waging war against the police and getting killed, when the vast majority of workers aren't even class conscious enough to be organized in unions or engage in mass workplace demonstrations. If you ask me, there are far more pressing tasks right now than dressing up and playing Rambo. I'll wait until my outrage against violent oppression is joined by a potentially revolutionary segment of the working class before I encourage fellow comrades to start engaging in acts of violence. To advise otherwise is, from a strategic perspective, idiotic. It potentially leads to a waste of human life for no benefit. Kinda like what we see in this case.

bcbm

6th June 2013, 21:22

nobody is talking about waging war on the police

Lucretia

6th June 2013, 21:24

nobody is talking about waging war on the police

Really, so when somebody says "war is waging" and "violence is brought to you every day unless you live a really privileged existence (which I doubt)," then proceeds to use this logic to justify acts of violence against those forces of oppression, what do you think is being discussed? The latest Die Hard movie? (In fairness to you, the distinction might be hard to make.)

The Douche

6th June 2013, 22:44

Really, so when somebody says "war is waging" and "violence is brought to you every day unless you live a really privileged existence (which I doubt)," then proceeds to use this logic to justify acts of violence against those forces of oppression, what do you think is being discussed? The latest Die Hard movie? (In fairness to you, the distinction might be hard to make.)

Where was I justifying acts of violence against forces of oppression?

I did specifically say this:

War does not necessarily mean a contest of arms.

But it doesn't fit into your cute little narrative, so I can see how you missed it.

bcbm

6th June 2013, 22:59

Lucretia

6th June 2013, 23:09

Where was I justifying acts of violence against forces of oppression?

I did specifically say this:

But it doesn't fit into your cute little narrative, so I can see how you missed it.

On the contrary, I have been clear that political/class struggle (or "warfare") has numerous phases, only one of which is open armed conflict. The fact that we haven't reached the stage of great warriors wielding their light sabers is why I don't find your grade-school martial metaphors to be particularly helpful in understanding the present situation, in explaining the pointless death of an eighteen-year-old leftist, and far better suited to an evening of Dungeons & Dragons.

As for your justification of violence against forces of oppression, I refer you to this remark of yours:

War is waging, we are in the thick of it, as a communist you have chosen sides in it.I suppose that we, who have chosen sides in this martial war against the evil forces of Skeletor, are not to engage in acts of violence? Hardly likely to be your view. So the only alternative is that it is justified for us to take action in this violent struggle, thrust upon us openly, against "forces of oppression." You stop short of saying, "Yeah, commit acts of violence, dude." But this is little more than a technicality, as your position can easily be deduced from the series of statements you've produced throughout this thread. You, of course, want to avoid saying it to spare the board any issues, and likely because such a statement would be against the board's policy. But the substance is unmistakable.

You're a very odd poster, swinging wildly from rhetoric that comes close to glorifying violence (whatever the context), to acting offended that anyone would deign to suggest that you might actually believe that some acts of violence are justified. Are you being serious?

The Douche

6th June 2013, 23:24

Not worth my time. You can see what you like to see.

Lucretia

6th June 2013, 23:28

i believe what is being discussed is social war and the stakes of adopting a partisan position within it

What is being discussed in this thread is the violent death of an eighteen-year-old leftist in France, followed by statements that talked about how that violent death -- not some metaphorical use of armed conflict -- should be "expected" because violent "war is waging" and "violence is brought to you every day."

You can play The_Douche's public relations pointman and spin to your heart's content, but in the context of this thread and the statements therein, it's clear that -- at the very least -- there's a pretty audacious attempt to elide class struggle with episodes of physical violence like the one in this subject of this thread.

The irony is that after emphasizing the difference between "class war" and actual armed conflict (which is only the ultimate phase of a class war), and how stupid it is to keep using embellished and celebratory metaphors in the latter to make sense of the former, I am now being accused of not understanding the difference between the two, and that what everybody has been talking about all along is just "class war" or "social war" in a general sense.

bcbm

6th June 2013, 23:30

On the contrary, I have been clear that political/class struggle (or "warfare") has numerous phases, only one of which is open armed conflict. The fact that we haven't reached the stage of great warriors wielding their light sabers is why I don't find your grade-school martial metaphors to be particularly helpful in understanding the present situation, in explaining the pointless death of an eighteen-year-old leftist, and far better suited to an evening of Dungeons & Dragons.

in france recently there has been a huge upsurge in right-wing violence, especially against gays, surrounding the passage of the gay marriage bill so i think for anti-fascists in france this is a very, very real fight right now, even more so now with this murder.

I suppose that we, who have chosen sides in this martial war against the evil forces of Skeletor, are not to engage in acts of violence? Hardly likely to be your view. So the only alternative is that it is justified for us to take action in this violent struggle, thrust upon us openly, against "forces of oppression." You stop short of saying, "Yeah, commit acts of violence, dude." But this is little more than a technicality, as your position can easily be deduced from the series of statements you've produced throughout this thread. You, of course, want to avoid saying it to spare the board any issues, and likely because such a statement would be against the board's policy. But the substance is unmistakable.

You're a very odd poster, swinging wildly from rhetoric that comes close to glorifying violence (whatever the context), to acting offended that anyone would deign to suggest that you might actually believe that some acts of violence are justified. Are you being serious?

'acts of violence' are certainly not off the table as a tactic but this war is not fought through force alone

bcbm

6th June 2013, 23:32

You can play The_Douche's public relations pointman and spin to your heart's content

no need to be an ass

Lucretia

6th June 2013, 23:34

in france recently there has been a huge upsurge in right-wing violence, especially against gays, surrounding the passage of the gay marriage bill so i think for anti-fascists in france this is a very, very real fight right now, even more so now with this murder.

'acts of violence' are certainly not off the table as a tactic but this war is not fought through force alone

Of course acts of violence are not off the table, in a context of low struggle in which you are compelled to deploy violence for purposes of self-defense. It is also in theory not off the table for some future date, in the even that class struggle heats up to the point of an open challenge to the bourgeoisie.

But I have been following events in France closely, and don't think that the recent spike in violence has come close to reaching a point to a state of generalized armed conflict -- which is what is required for me not to find such deaths like the eighteen-year-old's "expected." The attempt to conflate this upsurge in right-wing violence with the violence of class warfare generally is to make a mess of revolutionary strategy by abstracting violence from its context within the class struggle. To talk about either in highly elevated terms is to make a virtue of necessity. Class war is not a good thing, and shouldn't be celebrated. It should be undertaken as effectively as possible with the ultimate goal of winning, so that class struggle comes to an end.

bcbm

6th June 2013, 23:39

But I have been following events in France closely, and don't think that the recent spike in violence has come close to reaching a point to a state of generalized armed conflict -- which is what is required for me not to find such deaths like the eighteen-year-old's "expected."

the most violent periods of violence between the far right and left over past decades, at least in most places, have come nowhere near 'generalized armed conflict' but intense violence could certainly be expected during those times. i think this incident shows increasing confidence and audacity on the far right

The Feral Underclass

7th June 2013, 07:28

Apparently my point did not register. Allow me to restate it more pointedly. Saying there have always been and always will be low-level physical and violent confrontations between leftists and reactionaries does not warrant celebratory grandiose metaphors about fallen soldiers and wars. Much of it is defensive violence brought on by being targeted by reactionaries, and simply cannot be avoided. But that is different than celebrating it

No one was celebrating anything though, you just made that up.

At this low level of class struggle, nothing is advanced by violent clashes with right-wing morons. To think it does serve a purpose shows how far removed a person's politics is from class struggle, and how wedded it is to idealist adventurism and lame Hollywood movies.

Anyone who doesn't understand why disrupting the organising efforts and street presence of fascists isn't an integral part of class struggle is naive at best, and at worst an apologist for fascism.

The Feral Underclass

7th June 2013, 07:30

Lucretia

7th June 2013, 11:44

Anyone who doesn't understand why disrupting the organising efforts and street presence of fascists isn't an integral part of class struggle is naive at best, and at worst an apologist for fascism.

So unless I tell comrades to make themselves a target by trying to intervene in fascist demonstrations, then I am an "apologist of for fascism"? I guess telling comrades it's foolish at this stage of the struggle to resist police violently is being an "apologist for a police state." Disrupting the organizing efforts and street presence of reactionaries, just like organizing against the bourgeois state, can take many forms. Choosing the form most appropriate to the level of struggle is something anarchists can never seem to wrap their heads around. It also happens to be, as you note, not just integral to the class struggle - but integral to the success of the class struggle. Which explains why anarchists have never been close to launching any kind of successful revolution. When the rubber hits the road, they invariably cozy up to reformists due to their inability to sustain an alternative basis of concentrated power, and then combine this with overblown rhetoric of individualized resistance, as if pockets of people setting themselves on fire and walking into the middle of fash demonstrations with hammer-and-sickle flags will further the revolutionary cause at a time of generally low struggle. It's a great way of diverting revolutionaries into self-destructive behavior, and it's a great way of indulging in a politics of bourgeois self-expression while painting it in leftist colors, but in the end, it will lead nowhere.

Sam_b

7th June 2013, 11:54

Lucretia

7th June 2013, 12:00

Why are you clubbing everything together as just 'reactionaries'? There is a huge difference, for instance, between the reactionaries of the UMP and fascist street gangs. Lumping everyone together under some sort of banner is a deliberate tactic you seem to be applying in order to try and ridicule justified action in defence of black, Asian, Roma, LGBT and so on communities against fascists who time and time again have deliberately set out to wreak havoc where people live.

Nobody, to my mind, has mentioned a combat situation with guns either.

Not every reactionary street gang that seeks to deploy violence against targeted communities trying to advance left causes is fascist. That is why. So the purpose actually isn't to "ridicule justified action in defense of black, Asian, Roma, LGBT, and so on communities." It is to raise questions about how to combat reactionaries and defend such communities in a way that balances risk and reward at this stage of class struggle.

Nobody is suggesting that any of these people doesn't have a right to defend themselves, which is an accusation you're making that is coming completely out of the blue and mystifies me.

As for the gun issue, see the discussion above. There have been continuous efforts in this thread to merge gun-warrior talk with class struggle talk. That is how the topic has come up repeatedly.

Sam_b

7th June 2013, 12:06

It's come up repeatedly because you've tried to merge it yourself, that's why. You've not succeeded yet.

The Feral Underclass

7th June 2013, 12:06

So unless I tell comrades to make themselves a target by trying to intervene in fascist demonstrations, then I am an "apologist of for fascism"?

Build that strawman baby, we can go to the Wizard together.

I guess telling comrades it's foolish at this stage of the struggle to resist police violently is being an "apologist for a police state." Disrupting the organizing efforts and street presence of reactionaries, just like organizing against the bourgeois state, can take many forms. Choosing the form most appropriate to the level of struggle is something anarchists can never seem to wrap their heads around.

I want you to explain to everyone on this board why it is you think that brute force is not the appropriate level of struggle against the organising efforts and street presence of fascists?

It also happens to be, as you note, not just integral to the class struggle - but integral to the success of the class struggle. Which explains why anarchists have never been close to launching any kind of successful revolution. When the rubber hits the road, they invariably cozy up to reformists due to their inability to sustain an alternative basis of concentrated power, and then combine this with overblown rhetoric of individualized resistance, as if pockets of people setting themselves on fire and walking into the middle of fash demonstrations with hammer-and-sickle flags will further the revolutionary cause at a time of generally low struggle.

So in other words, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Don't try and evade the fact that you're soft on fascists by falling back on your stock party response to criticism from anarchists. You are soft on fascists so anarchists are reformists? Boooooooooorrrrrrinng.

It's a great way of diverting revolutionaries into self-destructive behavior, and it's a great way of indulging in a politics of bourgeois self-expression while painting it in leftist colors, but in the end, it will lead nowhere.

And here we have it, hot off the press, Lucretia himself exlaims, without any shame, that fighting fascists with violence is "self-destructive behaviour" and a "way of indulging in politics of bourgeois self-expression." They couldn't have said it better in the Daily Mail.

In other words you're soft on fascism and you have no substantive argument that will stop you from looking like you're soft on fascism. This might work on your little fan base around these parts, but I'm wise to your bullshit, Mr Man.

You. Got. Nothing.

Lucretia

7th June 2013, 12:15

Build that strawman baby, we can go to the Wizard together.

I want you to explain to everyone on this board why it is you think that brute force is not the appropriate level of struggle against the organising efforts and street presence of fascists?

So in other words, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Don't try and evade the fact that you're soft on fascists by falling back on your stock party response to criticism from anarchists. You are soft on fascists so anarchists are reformists? Boooooooooorrrrrrinng.

And here we have it, hot off the press, Lucretia himself exlaims, without any shame, that fighting fascists with violence is "self-destructive behaviour" and a "way of indulging in politics of bourgeois self-expression." They couldn't have said it better in the Daily Mail.

In other words you're soft on fascism and you have no substantive argument that will stop you from looking like you're soft on fascism. This might work on your little fan base around these parts, but I'm wise to your bullshit, Mr Man.

You. Got. Nothing.

You ask questions then respond to my remarks with "blah blah blah." Yeah, and I am going to waste my time trying to have a discussion with you again why?

I will repeat for the final time, and if it doesn't sink in, I will assume you're just missing a chromosome: using "brute force" is a tactic, and not necessarily one that is wise to implement at this point of the class struggle, either against facists or against the police or any other entity that represents a short- or long-term obstacle to socialism. Like all tactics, it is necessary to analyze the concrete situation to determine if it is appropriate, and under what circumstances it is appropriate, to use it. Like all anarchists, you latch onto all sorts of overblown rhetoric of individualized resistance, but lack any kind of effective strategy for advancing the collective struggle because your use of these glorious images of armed resistance and "brute force" are just run-of-the-mill bourgeois expressions of defiance, not part of a larger revolutionary strategy backed by a materialist analysis. How you can construe this into "being soft on fascism" or saying that we shouldn't try to oppose fascism more generally is beyond me.

SamB: notice that The Anarchist Tension brings up "brute force." Now you can stop whining about how I am the only person trying to make this a discussion of violence. Thanks.

The Feral Underclass

7th June 2013, 12:22

You ask questions then respond to my remarks with "blah blah blah." Yeah, and I am going to waste my time trying to have a discussion with you again why?

I asked no questions. I made a series of statements that you decided to respond to with the same boring shite that people like you have been whining at me for years.

In other words, if you're going to talk to me, try harder.

I will repeat for the final time, and if it doesn't sink it, I will assume you're just missing a chromosome: using "brute force" is a tactic, and not necessarily one that is wise to implement at this point of the class struggle, either against facists or against the police or any other entity that represents a short- or long-term obstacle to socialism.

I disrespectfully disagree.

Like all tactics, it is necessary to analyze the concrete situation to determine if it is appropriate, and under what circumstances it is appropriate, to use it.

I agree. And the only sensible approach to dealing with fascists is to physically prevent them from organising. Any tactic that permits the organising of fascists is woefully inappropriate.

Like all anarchists, you latch onto all sorts of overblown rhetoric of individualized resistance and sticking it to the man, but lack any kind of effective strategy for advancing the collective struggle.

You have absolutely no idea what anarchists think or do or have strategised on, so shut the fuck up, quite frankly.

You think allowing fascists to organise and have a street presence is the most appropriate tactic at this current phase of class struggle, I do not. That's not because I don't think or understand, it's because I don't agree with your shitty analysis.

Lucretia

7th June 2013, 12:32

I asked no questions. I made a series of statements that you decided to respond to with the same boring shite that people like you have been whining at me for years.

In other words, if you're going to talk to me, try harder.

I disrespectfully disagree.

I agree. And the only sensible approach to dealing with fascists is to physically prevent them from organising. Any tactic that permits the organising of fascists is woefully inappropriate.

You have absolutely no idea what anarchists think or do or have strategised on, so shut the fuck up, quite frankly.

You think allowing fascists to organise and have a street presence is the most appropriate tactic at this current phase of class struggle, I do not. That's not because I don't think or understand, it's because I don't agree with your shitty analysis.

You are really become unhinged now. I have not been whining at you "for years," being as you were for a lengthy period of time banned from this site. (Gee. I wonder why.) My first exchanges with you were on the other thread you've recently revived about Leninist politics and Occupy.

You claim you disagree with me and that we should treat using brute force against fascists not as a tactic but as a permanent strategy. For the reasons I elaborated above, I think this is a ridiculous position to take.

Since this is quickly degenerating into a "I'm right, you're wrong!" back-and-forth, I will note that this seems to be the point in our discussion where there are declining returns on time invested. Sadly this point seems to be reached much more quickly in my discussions with you than in my discussions with any other poster. I'll leave it for other participants on this forum to guess why this is so.

The Feral Underclass

7th June 2013, 12:43

You are really become unhinged now. I have not been whining at you "for years," being as you were for a lengthy period of time banned from this site. (Gee. I wonder why.) My first exchanges with you were on the other thread you've recently revived about Leninist politics and Occupy.

Are you a native English speaker? Obviously if English isn't your first language I don't want to be a dick, but "people like you" means "people who aren't you, but are like you" i.e. Trotskyists...

You claim you disagree with me and that we should treat using brute force against fascists not as a tactic but as a permanent strategy. For the reasons I elaborated above, I think this is a ridiculous position to take.

But what I find so fascinating is that you really think I give a fuck what you find ridiculous. I don't care. You're a fucking Trot. Your opinion is about as relevant to me as your fetid arse.

Since this is quickly degenerating into a "I'm right, you're wrong!" back-and-forth, I will note that this seems to be the point in our discussion where there are declining returns on time invested.

For you perhaps. I know I'm right. I have no interest in proving that to you. If you want to say asinine things to me, expect asinine responses.

Sadly this point seems to be reached much more quickly in my discussions with you than in my discussions with any other poster. I'll leave it for other participants on this forum to guess why this is so.

This point is reached quickly because there is no substance to anything you say to me. All you do is denigrate me personally and attack my politics ad hominem.

Try saying something interesting that isn't a standard Trot response to an anarchist, and I will be happy to have a discussion with you. If not then "you reap what you say" springs to mind.

Sam_b

7th June 2013, 13:51

Now you can stop whining about how I am the only person trying to make this a discussion of violence. Thanks.

I never talked about violence. I talked about guns.

Lucretia

7th June 2013, 15:00

I never talked about violence. I talked about guns.

Oh, a very important distinction to make in the context of this discussion. I stand corrected.

Lucretia

7th June 2013, 15:07

Are you a native English speaker? Obviously if English isn't your first language I don't want to be a dick, but "people like you" means "people who aren't you, but are like you" i.e. Trotskyists...

But what I find so fascinating is that you really think I give a fuck what you find ridiculous. I don't care. You're a fucking Trot. Your opinion is about as relevant to me as your fetid arse.

For you perhaps. I know I'm right. I have no interest in proving that to you. If you want to say asinine things to me, expect asinine responses.

This point is reached quickly because there is no substance to anything you say to me. All you do is denigrate me personally and attack my politics ad hominem.

Try saying something interesting that isn't a standard Trot response to an anarchist, and I will be happy to have a discussion with you. If not then "you reap what you say" springs to mind.

You complain that my posts lack substance, while I have made very clear in the substance of my posts that the deployment of violence in the class struggle is a tactic that should be bound by contextual factors, so that workers do not needlessly make themselves the targets of law enforcement, so that they don't make themselves appear exotic to the very workers whom they are trying to organize, etc.

Yet while you complain that my points lack "substance," let's see what substance your post consists of:

1) You don't care about what I say (while continuously responding to my posts).

2) You know you are right.

3) You claim (don't demonstrate) that I attack you and your politics ad hominem.

4) You whine that what I say conforms too closely to some standard Trotskyist response to anarchist claims.

WOW! What staggering substance. You've completely convinced me! Very persuasive stuff you've put together.

Oh, wait, that's right. You don't care about persuading anybody of anything, because you're positive that you are right. So you don't care what I think, have no interest in what I have to say, and aren't trying to persuade me of any particular position. Then here's a question for you: why don't you shut the fuck up?

The Feral Underclass

7th June 2013, 15:22

You complain that my posts lack substance, while I have made very clear in the substance of my posts that the deployment of violence in the class struggle is a tactic that should be bound by contextual factors, so that workers do not needlessly make themselves the targets of law enforcement, so that they don't make themselves appear exotic to the very workers whom they are trying to organize, etc.

Yes, you made a liberal argument, because you are a liberal.

Yet while you complain that my points lack "substance," let's see what substance your post consists of

But my posts to you in this thread are not substantive, so why would you do that? Are you trying to show that my post isn't substantive, because I think any one can see that, and I freely admit it. My posts aren't trying to be substantive, that is the difference between your posts and mine.

1) You don't care about what I say (while continuously responding to my posts).

Yeah, but you know, we're not 12. Just because I respond to you doesn't mean that your opinion holds weight with me. I can not care and respond at the same time. I mean, how else will I be able to tell you I don't care about your opinion if I don't respond to you?

2) You know you are right.

Thus far, no one has made a coherent argument that would make me think otherwise. You're welcome to try again.

3) You claim (don't demonstrate) that I attack you and your politics ad hominem[I].

Your posts stand as demonstration.

]4) You whine that what I say conforms too closely to some standard Trotskyist response to anarchist claims.

You call it whining, I call it pointing out a fact.

WOW! What staggering substance. You've completely convinced me! Very persuasive stuff you've put together.

I am not trying to convince you of anything...

Oh, wait, that's right. You don't care about persuading anybody of anything, because you're positive that you are right.

Nope, just you.

So you don't care what I think, have no interest in what I have to say, and aren't trying to persuade me of any particular position. Then here's a question for you: why don't you shut the fuck up?

Because responding to your posts makes you get all angry, confused and shouty, where you misunderstand basic linguistic concepts, such as meaning, and this gives me great pleasure to watch :)

Sasha

7th June 2013, 15:32

Note, this thread is a split from this one: http://www.revleft.com/vb/french-18yo-comrade-t181277/index.html

Lucretia

7th June 2013, 20:21

Yes, you made a liberal argument, because you are a liberal.

But my posts to you in this thread are not substantive, so why would you do that? Are you trying to show that my post isn't substantive, because I think any one can see that, and I freely admit it. My posts aren't trying to be substantive, that is the difference between your posts and mine.

Yeah, but you know, we're not 12. Just because I respond to you doesn't mean that your opinion holds weight with me. I can not care and respond at the same time. I mean, how else will I be able to tell you I don't care about your opinion if I don't respond to you?

Thus far, no one has made a coherent argument that would make me think otherwise. You're welcome to try again.

Your posts stand as demonstration.

You call it whining, I call it pointing out a fact.

I am not trying to convince you of anything...

Nope, just you.

Because responding to your posts makes you get all angry, confused and shouty, where you misunderstand basic linguistic concepts, such as meaning, and this gives me great pleasure to watch :)

You can repeat yourself all you want to, TAT. You have not made any kind of argument, and your posts have no substance of which to speak. It's actually weird you're disputing this, in light of how you openly confess to not caring what I think and admitting you're not trying to persuade me of anything -- as if to try to justify and explain why your posts have no substance. If I cared enough about your presence on this forum (which I don't, certainly not enough to get angry about), I'd consider reporting you for trolling.

But I think your behavior in this thread, and the errrm "quality" of your posts, demonstrates more about the bankruptcy of your politics and your position on the specific issue of political tactics than can be learned by any airy theoretical argument that I or any other poster might make. Feel free to continue your demonstration by littering the thread with your increasingly infantile and substance-free garbage.

If you actually want to have an informed and civil exchange on this, instead of whining about Trotskyists, playing the victim card about posters who have supposedly been annoying you for years (as you tried to remind me: we're debating each other, not imaginary anarchists or Trots), and spewing substance-free one-liners, feel free to make this known in the thread, and I will consider -- and only consider -- engaging you once more.

Until then, have fun shitting in your own playpen.

The Feral Underclass

7th June 2013, 20:36

You can repeat yourself all you want to, TAT. You have not made any kind of argument, and your posts have no substance of which to speak. It's actually weird you're disputing this

:lol:

This is hilarious. Lucretia strikes again. You should try reading my posts before you reply to them.

in light of how you openly confess to not caring what I think and admitting you're not trying to persuade me of anything -- as if to try to justify and explain why your posts have no substance. If I cared enough about your presence on this forum (which I don't, certainly not enough to get angry about), I'd consider reporting you for trolling.

Typical! Whether it's to the state or to some board admins you lot are always grassing us anarchists in. Never trust a Trot.

But I think your behavior in this thread, and the errrm "quality" of your posts, demonstrates more about the bankruptcy of your politics and your position on the specific issue of political tactics than anything airy recondite argument I or any other poster could make. Feel free to continue your demonstration with increasingly infantile and substance-free garbage.

You're soft on fascists and use liberal arguments to justify yourself. You deserve nothing more than mockery and contempt.

If you actually want to have an informed and civil exchange on this, instead of whining about Trotskyists, playing the victim card about posters who have supposedly been annoying you for years (as you tried to remind me: we're debating each other, not imaginary anarchists or Trots), and spewing substance-free one-liners, feel free to make this known in the thread, and I will consider -- and only consider -- engaging you once more.

If only Trots existed on this forum. I'm afraid I have had to deal with you lot for years in the real world. I have nothing more to say than I have already. When you advance your politics beyond liberalism and grow a back bone, maybe I will consider engaging with you.

Lucretia

7th June 2013, 20:59

:lol:

This is hilarious. Lucretia strikes again. You should try reading my posts before you reply to them.

Typical! Whether it's to the state or to some board admins you lot are always grassing us anarchists in. Never trust a Trot.

You're soft on fascists and use liberal arguments to justify yourself. You deserve nothing more than mockery and contempt.

If only Trots existed on this forum. I'm afraid I have had to deal with you lot for years in the real world. I have nothing more to say than I have already. When you advance your politics beyond liberalism and grow a back bone, maybe I will consider engaging with you.

Your valorization of violence, and insistence on using it not as a tactic but as a strategy has far more in common with fascism than you'd like to think. In fact, in light of your trolling behavior, I am beginning to think your previous ban might have been for suspicions that you're a fascist. Would you mind reminding everybody here why you were banned again? I'm sure we'd all love to know.

The Feral Underclass

7th June 2013, 21:11

Lucretia

7th June 2013, 21:12

It's because I hunted down liberal trots and stabbed them with ice picks.

Really? I seem to remember hearing a completely different story. One that certainly involved protrusions, but not ice picks.

The Feral Underclass

7th June 2013, 21:14

Really? I seem to remember hearing a completely different story

Feel free to share it with us...

One that certainly involved protrusions, but not ice picks.

Is this supposed to be a dig at me being gay?

Lucretia

7th June 2013, 21:17

Feel free to share it with us...

Is this supposed to be a dig at me being gay?

I am referencing the rationale for your ban. Are you suggesting you were banned for being gay? Is that some kind of dig at the BA?

The Feral Underclass

7th June 2013, 21:20

I am referencing the rationale for your ban. Are you suggesting you were banned for being gay? Is that some kind of dig at the BA?

What else is "protrusions" supposed to refer to if not my sexuality? That's not a dig at the BA, it's a dig at you.

A liberal and a homophobe, you are doing well in this thread.

Lucretia

7th June 2013, 21:22

What else is "protrusions" supposed to refer to if not my sexuality? That's not a dig at the BA, it's a dig at you.

A liberal and a homophobe, you are doing well in this thread.

It is supposed to refer to an episode that led to your being banned. If you want to claim that this is connected to your being "gay," then you are suggesting that you were banned for being gay. You really do have reading comprehension issues, don't you? Anyhow, why don't you explain to everybody why you were banned? (This is much better than seriously engaging in political discussion. Aren't you happy you made the choice you did?)

The Feral Underclass

7th June 2013, 21:25

It is supposed to refer to an episode that led to your being banned. If you want to claim that this is connected to your being "gay," then you are suggesting that you were banned for being gay. You really do have reading comprehension issues, don't you?

Erm, wait a moment, I'm talking to you. You are the one who tried to make some innuendo about protrusions. If I am suggesting anything it's that you think this has something to do with my sexuality, otherwise why else would you make such an innuendo...?

Anyhow, why don't you explain to everybody why you were banned?

I told you why I was banned.

Lucretia

7th June 2013, 21:28

Erm, wait a moment, I'm talking to you. You are the one who tried to make some innuendo about protrusions. If I am suggesting anything it's that you think this has something to do with my sexuality, otherwise why else would you make such an innuendo... I told you why I was banned.

Yes, you're talking to me about why you were banned. I was told that you were banned for a situation involving protrusions. You want to claim that the word "protrusion" is a reference to your identifying as gay. Ergo, you are suggesting that your banning was related to being gay. I am sure even somebody as special as you can follow along if you really tried. Why don't you share with everybody the real reason you were banned?

The Feral Underclass

7th June 2013, 21:34

Yes, you're talking to me about why you were banned. I was told that you were banned for a situation involving protrusions. You want to claim that the word "protrusion" is a reference to your identifying as gay.

I haven't claimed anything babes. You made an innuendo and I questioned what the innuendo was in reference to. Thus far you've not told me. All I can surmise from it is that you are trying to refer to my sexuality. If you're not, what are you referring to?

Ergo, you are suggesting that your banning was related to being gay. I am sure even somebody as special as you can follow along if you really tried.

That's not really how logic works. I know why I was banned but I have a feeling you don't and that's why you're making homophobic comments in order to get a rise out of me.

Pretty low tactic even for a trot.

Why don't you share with everybody the real reason you were banned?

Erm, because no one cares? The only reason you care is because you are trying to cause trouble. Having your liberal politics pointed out to you is clearly not something you like.

Lucretia

7th June 2013, 21:37

I haven't claimed anything babes. You made an innuendo and I questioned what the innuendo was in reference to. Thus far you've not told me. All I can surmise from it is that you are trying to refer to my sexuality. If you're not, what are you referring to?

That's not really how logic works. I know why I was banned but I have a feeling you don't and that's why you're making homophobic comments in order to get a rise out of me.

Pretty low tactic even for a trot.

Erm, because no one cares? The only reason you care is because you are trying to cause trouble. Having your liberal politics pointed out to you is clearly not something you like.

Homophobic comments? If you had done even a cursory examination of my posting history, you would surely know that this Trotskyist is gay. So your attempt at deflecting in that direction won't work either. So no, I'm not raising the issue of your banning because I want to slur gay people, including myself. I genuinely would like to know: why were you banned? Are you ashamed of saying why?

And the only reason we're discussing it is that you've made very clear that you have no interest in having a serious political discussion in this thread. So I figured I'd ask the question and engage you on your own level. Don't you wish you'd chosen what's behind door #1 instead?

The Feral Underclass

7th June 2013, 21:39

Homophobic comments? If you had done even a cursory examination of my posting history, you would surely know that this Trotskyist is gay. So your attempt at deflecting in that direction won't work either. So no, I'm not raising the issue of your banning because I want to slur gay people, including myself.

:rolleyes: So what are you referring to? Jesus fucking Christ...

I genuinely would like to know: why were you banned?

It's none of your business babes.

Are you ashamed of saying why?

Most definitely.

And the only reason we're discussing it is that you've made very clear that you have no interest in having a serious political discussion in this thread. So I figured I'd ask the question. Don't you wish you'd chosen what's behind door #1 instead?

:lol:

Not at all. I'm having a great time :) Nothing I love more than goading Trots.

Lucretia

7th June 2013, 21:44

:rolleyes: So what are you referring to? Jesus fucking Christ...

It's none of your business babes.

Most definitely.

:lol:

Not at all. I'm having a great time :)

None of our business? More bourgeois liberal individualism. The BA certainly seemed to think your behavior related to the forum as a whole. Otherwise they would not have banned you. We're not talking about an unpaid parking citation here, are we? I think anybody can look through your posting history and get a pretty good sense of why you're not being so forthcoming. And we sure as hell aren't talking about your delusions of slaying dragons or demented fascist fantasies of ice-picking your political adversaries.

The Feral Underclass

7th June 2013, 21:50

None of our business? More bourgeois liberal individualism. The BA certainly seemed to think your behavior related to the forum as a whole. Otherwise they would not have banned you. We're not talking about an unpaid parking citation here, are we? I think anybody can look through your posting history and get a pretty good sense of why you're not being so forthcoming.

None of your business.

I'm not really sure who you think you are or what you think this forum is, but the last person on this forum that I have to justify myself to is you.

At the end of the day, nothing you can say about me and my personal relationship with the BA is going to help you evade the reality of the politics you have displayed in this thread.

When all is said and done, you take the liberal position that fascists should be free to organise. That is the clear cut message of your opinions. You cannot evade that, despite all your ad hominem attacks.

This (http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r68/dotec/ClutchingStraws.jpg) picture adequately represents your latest posts.

Lucretia

7th June 2013, 21:54

I'm not really sure who you think you are or what you think this forum is, but the last person on this forum that I have to justify myself to is you.

At the end of the day, nothing you can say about me and my personal relationship with the BA is going to help you evade the reality of the politics you have displayed in this thread.

When all is said and done, you take the liberal position that fascists should be free to organise. That is the clear cut message of your opinions. You cannot evade that, despite all your ad hominem attacks.

This (http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r68/dotec/ClutchingStraws.jpg) picture adequately represents your latest posts.

Oh, so are you suggesting you'd actually like to talk politics again? Ok. Let's do it, once again using your chosen level.

Why do you take the knock-kneed liberal position that we shouldn't be engaged in armed conflict with all constabulary forces? Hmm? You think cozying up to the police state is going to earn you brownie points, and that police should be free to just do whatever they want?

The Feral Underclass

7th June 2013, 21:56

Oh, so are you suggesting you'd actually like to talk politics again? Ok. Let's do it, once again using your chosen level.

Why do you take the knock-kneed liberal position that we shouldn't be engaged in armed conflict with all constabulary forces? Hmm? You think cozying up to the police state is going to earn you brownie points, and that police should be free to just do whatever they want?

Clutching. At. Straws.

Lucretia

7th June 2013, 22:00

Clutching. At. Straws.

The question should be taken with about as much seriousness as your statements about my "softness on fascism."

The Feral Underclass

7th June 2013, 22:04

The question should be taken with about as much seriousness as your statements about my "softness on fascism."

Not really though. You have said in this thread that there are instances where we should not physically prevent fascists from organising and having a street presence.

That is what you have said.

Lucretia

7th June 2013, 22:06

Not really though. You have said in this thread that there are instances where we should not physically prevent fascists from organising and having a street presence.

That is what you have said.

And your position is that there are instances where we should not physically prevent law enforcement from performing their duties. Clearly you have no interest in fighting the bourgeois state.

The Feral Underclass

7th June 2013, 22:16

And your position is that there are instances where we should not physically prevent law enforcement from performing their duties. Clearly you have no interest in fighting the bourgeois state.

But there is a flaw in this comparison, as I have never claimed you are not interested in fighting fascists. It also doesn't work because fighting fascists and fighting the bourgeois state are not the same things.

The only way you can defeat fascism is by preventing fascists from organising and having a street presence. There is no other way you can do that without employing brute force.

Any suggestion that you can defeat fascism through debate or isolation or parliamentarian etc is liberal in nature. Aside from it implying there is a place for their existence, it underestimates the seriousness of them existing.

Lucretia

7th June 2013, 22:24

But there is a flaw in this comparison, as I have never claimed you are not interested in fighting fascists. It also doesn't work because fighting fascists and fighting the bourgeois state are not the same things.

The only way you can defeat fascism is by preventing fascists from organising and having a street presence. There is no other way you can do that without employing brute force.

Any suggestion that you can defeat fascism through debate or isolation or parliamentarian etc is liberal in nature. Aside from it implying there is a place for their existence, it underestimates the seriousness of them existing.

You defeat fascism by defeating the bourgeoisie in class struggle. And how to do that, like which tactics to employ when fighting fascism, are contingent upon context and what phase of the class struggle we find ourselves in.

The Feral Underclass

7th June 2013, 22:26

You defeat fascism by defeating the bourgeoisie in class struggle.

That's just absurd.

Lucretia

7th June 2013, 22:29

That's just absurd.

Only to somebody who doesn't understand the class basis of fascism and its role in the epoch of decay, and instead replaces these important insights with moralizing and adventurist posturing.

The Feral Underclass

7th June 2013, 22:29

In any case, fascism poses a threat to the working class organising to abolish themselves as a class right now. They are fighting for and in the same arenas of struggle. If you're not prepared to fight them effectively now then you are essentially offering them the possibility of claiming victory.

The Feral Underclass

7th June 2013, 22:30

Only to somebody who doesn't understand the class basis of fascism and its role in the epoch of decay.

The [political] existence of fascism isn't going to disappear because the workers have successfully seized the means of production.

Lucretia

7th June 2013, 22:34

In any case, fascism poses to the working class organising to abolish themselves as a class. They are struggling for the same arenas of struggle. If you're not prepared to fight them now then you are essentially offering them the possibility of claiming victory.

Fascism poses a threat to workers' revolution, just as bourgeois police forces do. Again, the question isn't whether to fight them, but about judiciously choosing tactics that are appropriate to the present level of struggle. Obviously if the context were such that any fascist movement were large and influential enough that they might conceivably "claim victory" (whatever you mean by that -- it's just another moral term devoid, in your usage, of a clear political content), then obviously tactics will need to be chosen that differ from, say, the present period. Your problem is you don't choose tactics to fit context. You choose them to express your moral convictions. This is not politics; it is sermonizing with a gun, while holding the workers' movement hostage to your whims.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

7th June 2013, 22:40

Any suggestion that you can defeat fascism through debate or isolation or parliamentarian etc is liberal in nature. Aside from it implying there is a place for their existence, it underestimates the seriousness of them existing.
I'd like you to point out where Lucretia ever suggested that "debate" or mediation tactics will be most effective in combating fascists. Because as far as I can tell, you're just making this up. What he was trying to say is that in a time in which workers generally have low socialist class consciousness, engaging the fascists at this point may turn out to be a mistake, and I agree.

I will put a question to you: Are workers involved in these attacks on fascists? Without significant worker participation in these combat strikes, an open struggle at this stage will only end up isolating them from us, coming off as terrorism or worse. In the period before 1933, the class struggle was at a fever pitch in (especially) Germany and Italy; the problem was not worker participation, but the KPD and SPD leadership forcing them not to act against the fascist bands. If this was such a situation, I could understand your irritation. But unfortunately, we are not. Socialism, as a world movement, is terribly weak, and has little to do with the day-to-day problems of workers. Does this mean we do nothing? Of course not, but if we hope to deal with reactionaries in general and fascists in particular, worker participation is a must. Carrying out the class struggle without them denies them their importance in the class struggle, their very agency in society. I find this antithetical to the struggle for socialist consciousness.

But, there is another outlook you may possess, if worker participation is low and you carry out these attacks regardless. Do you believe that there is another social class that can replace the working class in the struggle for socialism?

The Feral Underclass

7th June 2013, 22:43

Fascism poses a threat to workers' revolution, just as bourgeois police forces do.

The threat fascists pose is not the same as the the bourgeois police force and this opinion demonstrates the liberal nature of your views.

Again, the question isn't whether to fight them, but about judiciously choosing tactics that are appropriate to the present level of struggle.

No, it's not about whether to fight them, it's about how you fight them effectively i.e. how to defeat them, and the only effective way to prevent them from achieving their political objectives [of claiming dominance in the streets and over the state], is to physically prevent them from organising and having a street presence.

There is no other way to achieve this.

Obviously if the context were such that any fascist movement were large and influential enough that they might conceivably "claim victory" (whatever you mean by that -- it's just another moral term devoid, in your usage, of a clear political content), then obviously tactics will need to be chosen that differ from, say, the present period. Your problem is you don't choose tactics to fit context.

There is no other tactic or context for it fit. You cannot defeat fascism without using force. End of story.

You choose them to express your moral convictions. This is not politics; it is sermonizing with a gun, while holding the workers' movement hostage to your whims.

Nice try, but this has nothing to do with "morals," it's about effectively defeating fascism. That means choosing the tactics and strategies that will actually achieve that.

The Feral Underclass

7th June 2013, 22:52

I will put a question to you: Are workers involved in these attacks on fascists?

Erm, I'm a worker. So are all my comrades and the community I live in.

Without significant worker participation in these combat strikes, an open struggle at this stage will only end up isolating them from us, coming off as terrorism or worse.

Thousands of workers have been on the streets in cities around the UK in an effort to fight fascists. There is, naturally, the violence vs non-violence argument but that's an argument that has to be won. I have faith in my community to make the right decision and if they reject it, then the fight continues to win the argument.

In the period before 1933, the class struggle was at a fever pitch in (especially) Germany and Italy; the problem was not worker participation, but the KPD and SPD leadership forcing them not to act against the fascist bands. If this was such a situation, I could understand your irritation. But unfortunately, we are not. Socialism, as a world movement, is terribly weak. Does this mean we do nothing? Of course not, but if we hope to deal with reactionaries in general and fascists in particular, worker participation is a must. Carrying out the class struggle without them denies them their importance in the class struggle, their very agency in society.

You talk of workers in the abstract as if you're not part of it. I am working class. The people in my community are working class, as are my comrades. We choose to use our fists to make sure fascists don't put leaflets through our doors or set up stalls in our city.

Your instrumentalist attitude is because you want party control over the state, which makes your talk about worker agency rather disingenuous. You are perfectly happy to deny my agency as a worker or the agency of my comrades and community, and for what? So that you can popularise your political party in an effort to win state power: This is practically the essence of liberal politics.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

7th June 2013, 23:19

Erm, I'm a worker. So are all my comrades and the community I live in.
Okay. Did not know that. Of course that is to be expected, since I don't know you at all.

Thousands of workers have been on the streets in cities around the UK in an effort to fight fascists. There is, naturally, the violence vs non-violence argument but that's an argument that has to be won. I have faith in my community to make the right decision and if they reject it, then the fight continues to win the argument.
Very well. Assuming you're telling the truth, do you have any gauging of the attitude of the masses towards your actions? This is not to say that you must reconcile yourself with bourgeois public opinion, but passive (or active) support of the majority of the masses in Britain (I'm assuming you're here) would possibly make conditions for revolution far more advantageous. And have your actions actually stopped the fascists, or any of their organizations?

You talk of workers in the abstract as if you're not part of it. I am working class. The people in my community are working class, as are my comrades. We choose to use our fists to make sure fascists don't put leaflets through our doors or set up stalls in our city.Well, I am also a worker, as are the people in my own community. But I'm currently living and working in an area that does not really have a lot going on, so I think a bit of emotional detachment right now is natural. Class consciousness is low, and hatred/distrust of trade unions is extremely high.

Your instrumentalist attitude is because you want party control over the state, which makes your talk about worker agency rather disingenuous. You are perfectly happy to deny my agency as a worker or the agency of my comrades and community, and for what? So that you can popularise your political party in an effort to win state power: This is practically the essence of liberal politics.
Excuse me? Party control? I am currently in no political party. I have not yet found a worker's party that I want to be a part of. And your assumptions about my political positions are erroneous and in my opinion, are anathema to Trotskyism. Your accusation of "instrumentalism" therefore has little ground. Nice use of a five-dollar word, though. I am very intimidated.

The rest of what you're saying is blaming me for not immediately assuming you were a worker, which I think I am justified in doing, given what board we're posting on. And...more attempts to put words in my mouth. Thanks for that.

"...the essence of liberal politics..."? Give me a break. In my opinion, your argument tactics have far more in common with "liberal" attitudes than mine; You seek to provoke, jump to conclusions and you have no patience for theoretical discussion. The latter could be because Lucretia riled you up, but given how you've behaved in other threads, I'm not going to whip out my optimism just yet.

Lucretia

7th June 2013, 23:24

The threat fascists pose is not the same as the the bourgeois police force and this opinion demonstrates the liberal nature of your views.

No, it's not about whether to fight them, it's about how you fight them effectively i.e. how to defeat them, and the only effective way to prevent them from achieving their political objectives [of claiming dominance in the streets and over the state], is to physically prevent them from organising and having a street presence.

There is no other way to achieve this.

There is no other tactic or context for it fit. You cannot defeat fascism without using force. End of story.

Nice try, but this has nothing to do with "morals," it's about effectively defeating fascism. That means choosing the tactics and strategies that will actually achieve that.

We've established that we agree that the important issue isn't whether to fight fascism, but how. You then follow this up with the claim that fascism can't be defeated except by force. But then neither can the bourgeois state. Does that mean we start an armed insurrection right now? I am sure you wouldn't argue that we should (at least I hope you'd make this argument), but this just raises the question as to why we should be sensitive to context in choosing tactics when fighting the bourgeois state, but then pretend that doing so in the context of a fight against fascism is "liberalism" and "softness."

So far, the only reason I can see is a desire to grandstand and moralize about opposition to fascism as a kind of thoughtless bumper-sticker slogan. This, you see, is where "morality" comes into play as far as my interpretation of your remarks goes.

Ele'ill

7th June 2013, 23:38

force doesn't mean specifically an armed insurrection there's so much more in our arsenal

The Feral Underclass

8th June 2013, 09:16

We've established that we agree that the important issue isn't whether to fight fascism, but how. You then follow this up with the claim that fascism can't be defeated except by force. But then neither can the bourgeois state. Does that mean we start an armed insurrection right now? I am sure you wouldn't argue that we should (at least I hope you'd make this argument), but this just raises the question as to why we should be sensitive to context in choosing tactics when fighting the bourgeois state, but then pretend that doing so in the context of a fight against fascism is "liberalism" and "softness."

But as I've said repeatedly, this isn't about being "sensitive" (as if fellow workers had to be handled with cotton gloves), it is about doing what is effective, i.e. what is going to be successful. What will prevent fascists from organising and what will defeat the bourgeois state requires different tactics and strategies. You employ the strategy that will work; that will achieve your objectives.

Fighting fascists is about ensuring political enemies don't achieve their political objectives. Defeating the bourgeois state is about creating communism. These require different tactics and strategies in order for the proletariat to be successful.

To try and claim there is an alternative method of fighting fascists than physically preventing them from organising is liberal and makes you soft on fascism. For the reasons I have given.

So far, the only reason I can see is a desire to grandstand and moralize about opposition to fascism as a kind of thoughtless bumper-sticker slogan. This, you see, is where "morality" comes into play as far as my interpretation of your remarks goes.

Pay more attention to what I am saying then.

The Feral Underclass

8th June 2013, 09:39

Incidentally, the EDL are marching in my city today and a counter-demonstration was organised. The Socialist Workers' Party have decided to do what the police have told them and move their counter-demo to a different location, away from the EDL, despite wide publicity that the counter-demo will be by the EDL, which was for the purpose of trying to prevent them from marching. The counter-demo is now being dubbed as a "peace event" to celebrate "multi-culturalism." All fine and well, but while people are playing guitars and listening to trade unionists repeat themselves, fascists are getting a free march through the city and the opposition is now divided, with stragglers and others who aren't aware of the location change potentially at risk from attack and other workers/militant anti-fascists isolated. Why have they done this? A) to placate the state and B) To maintain control over the main opposition.

This is the nature of Trotskyist tactics. This is what you people do. This is how you people fight fascists!

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

8th June 2013, 10:21

Perhaps the (British) SWP. On the other hand, in America the SL, IG, LRP, and the arguably Trotskyist WWP have led the resistance to the Klan (a reactionary though not fascist group, but the principle is the same, and in fact I doubt many of the groups we sometimes call fascist really are fascist), even when other sections of the socialist movement had capitulated to the Democrats and their calls for free speech to the Klansmen.

I am not sure I entirely agree with comrade Lucretia here; the difference between the bourgeois police and violent reactionary movements is that the latter pose a direct threat to the life of large sections of the proletariat. If the police posed a similar threat, if they were assisting in pogroms for example, I think it would make sense to strike at the police as well, not because I think in moralistic terms (if that were the case, I might as well have advocated the outright extermination of the police), but due to the necessity of proletarian solidarity and self-defense.

At the same time, I do think that anti-fa activism needs to be more connected to the communities they are defending - and this means conducting agitation, education and propaganda in addition to possible violent self-defence. Violent action need not alienate us from the proletariat, quite the contrary. And unless this is done, all the talk about disrupting fascist presence will be for nothing, since another violent reactionary group will arise the moment you smash the previous one, partially recruited from people you could have reached and who could have developed a genuine class consciousness.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

8th June 2013, 12:40

This is the nature of Trotskyist tactics. This is what you people do. This is how you people fight fascists!
Cool story. But the SWP broke with Trotskyism long ago. And while I can't speak for Lucretia, the SWP certainly doesn't represent my own politics in the least; I would appreciate it if you wouldn't lump us all together like that. It would be like saying that the Xbox bomb "Bomberman: Act Zero" represents all video games.

The Feral Underclass

8th June 2013, 13:16

Lucretia

8th June 2013, 13:37

But as I've said repeatedly, this isn't about being "sensitive" (as if fellow workers had to be handled with cotton gloves), it is about doing what is effective, i.e. what is going to be successful. What will prevent fascists from organising and what will defeat the bourgeois state requires different tactics and strategies. You employ the strategy that will work; that will achieve your objectives.

Fighting fascists is about ensuring political enemies don't achieve their political objectives. Defeating the bourgeois state is about creating communism. These require different tactics and strategies in order for the proletariat to be successful.

To try and claim there is an alternative method of fighting fascists than physically preventing them from organising is liberal and makes you soft on fascism. For the reasons I have given.

Pay more attention to what I am saying then.

You do understand that "sensitive" has a linguistic meaning transcending the idea of "gentle" or "delicate"? In the context of my post, I was hoping you'd pick up on the idea that "sensitive to" is synonymous with "attuned to" or "aware of" or "detecting with one's senses." So I am hardly prepared to be lectured by you about careful reading.

The rest of your post is just more blathering that conflates methods with objectives, quite ironic for somebody who is such an ardent critic of Leninism. Fighting any political opponent is about ensuring that the opponent doesn't obtain their objectives. And the end goal of fighting a political opponent might not be just to prevent the opponent from realizing their political objectives, but might also be -- as is the case with socialists' approach to fascism and the bourgeois state -- ensuring that the opponent's political position doesn't survive at all, either as an ideology or in any kind of institutionalized form.

These objectives are different than the question of tactics, about what to do in the present context to advance ourselves most effectively to a point where our ultimate objectives are met, whether that objective be the more modest one of holding political opponents' influence in check, or the more ambitious one of eliminating a particular ideology altogether. As you note, "These require different tactics and strategies in order for the proletariat to be successful."

But then you undermine this recognition of flexibility when you claim, "To try and claim there is an alternative method of fighting fascists than physically preventing them from organising is liberal and makes you soft on fascism. For the reasons I have given."

So there is only one method of fighting fascism? Really? What do you think educating fellow workers about the real meaning of revolutionary socialism is, and counterposing such a program to fascist wankery is? Not fighting fascism? What do you think holding counter-demonstrations alongside fascist demonstrations is, while not going as far as to try to "physically prevent" the fascist demonstration? Not fighting fascism?

On the flipside, does it make sense to send people out to physically attack and menace fifty fascist buffoons in a town square somewhere when such flagrant use of violent tactics would alienate masses of workers who are just beginning to radicalize in their workplaces?

Your answer to these questions represents a failure to engage seriously with how obstacles to proletarian self-emancipation are constant in flux and therefore require flexibility in terms of tactics and prioritizing. Instead, you substitute grandstanding, posturing, and moralizing by claiming to know The One Way To Fight Fascism In All Times and In All Places (tm). It's the kind of take-it-or-leave-it arrogance that one usually sees in anarchist caricatures of Leninism. And, not surprisingly, contrary to your claim about "the reasons you provided," you have provided zero reason as to why we should artificially limit the scope of our tactics in a fight against fascism to your One True Way. You've just stated it, and instead of providing an argument, attacked as "liberal and weak" anybody who disagrees with you.

Your posts in this thread are intellectual laziness and stupidity of the highest order. When you combine this with your sneering smugness, your persona on this forum is just over-the-top laughable. This is why I suspect trolling is afoot.

Lucretia

8th June 2013, 13:45

Cool story. But the SWP broke with Trotskyism long ago. And while I can't speak for Lucretia, the SWP certainly doesn't represent my own politics in the least; I would appreciate it if you wouldn't lump us all together like that. It would be like saying that the Xbox bomb "Bomberman: Act Zero" represents all video games.

It's funny how The Anarchist Tension wants to claim his tiny sect of platformists should be disentangled from the majority of people (in the US at least) who identify as anarchist, but who in The Anarchist Tension's estimation don't take class struggle seriously, while at the same time he insists on grouping anybody who uses the term "vanguard party" together as a politically monolithic bloc. I guess it would be too much to expect him to be sensitive (note the usage of "sensitive" here) to the political differences of anybody outside of his tendency.

Lucretia

8th June 2013, 14:01

I am not sure I entirely agree with comrade Lucretia here; the difference between the bourgeois police and violent reactionary movements is that the latter pose a direct threat to the life of large sections of the proletariat. If the police posed a similar threat, if they were assisting in pogroms for example, I think it would make sense to strike at the police as well, not because I think in moralistic terms (if that were the case, I might as well have advocated the outright extermination of the police), but due to the necessity of proletarian solidarity and self-defense.

This is an abstract difference. Certainly fascists potentially represent a direct threat to large sections of the proletariat, just as the workers are potentially a revolutionary force. The difference between what a group can potentially become and what they currently are makes all the difference in the world when selecting tactics. Or as an old expression put its, it's the difference between chalk and cheese. We don't try to start insurrections because the proletariat is only potentially a revolutionary force at the present moment, just as we don't pour human resources into spying on and harassing five skinsheads waving swastikas in the midst of a large metropolitan area somewhere because, while potentially at some point in the future a threat to the existence of entire ethnicities, they would be little more than a nuisance. Neither should we risk the physical safety or jeopardize the legal status of comrades by encouraging them to assault those skinheads. This isn't a question of principle, but of judging the tasks at hand in the present conjecture. Different circumstances -- a society where tens of thousands of fascists are organizing on city streets -- require a different prognosis.

At the time Trotsky was writing about the rise of fascism, fascists were a massive and organized threat counterposed to a radicalized working class that was highly mobilized and had been engaged in escalating struggle for the previous decade. he called for workers' militias to combat fascism in Western Europe. That analysis made sense at the time. But it certainly doesn't make sense at the present juncture. It would take an incredibly tortured analysis of American politics to suggest that fascist movements are any kind of threat to American workers at the present juncture, much less more of a threat than police forces. In fact, one of the pay-offs of Trotsky's analysis is that in the epoch of decay, fascism represents the leading edge of a general trend in the breakdown of bourgeois law and order. That analysis is over 70 years old. We've reached a stage where law enforcement in many (but certainly not all) respects is identical to the brownshirts. Except that law enforcement is present on every city block. Which is why I've made it a point throughout to bring them up constantly as a basis for comparison.

Sentinel

8th June 2013, 14:41

To avoid misunderstandings it needs to be pointed out here that it's not some kind of universal 'trotskyist position' that fascists should be allowed to have a street presence 'at this stage' or any other damn stage. The position of my party for example is that it's a fundamental duty of ours to try stop them anytime they try to organise meetings, demonstrations etc.

This is indeed absolutely crucial, to prevent them from gaining confidence and by extention taking control over the streets. We believe that the best way to do this however is mass mobilisation against them, not violence by small groups.

Whenever it has been possible, nazi demos around here have been surrounded, isolated and booed out by large crowds people mobilised by us and others we've cooperated with. And at times when this has failed we've still turned up to defy them, often risking our lives having to defend ourselves despite not initiating violence.

***

On an administrative note, the personal attacks in this thread need to stop. General verbal warning to everyone; further ad hominems and flames by anyone, against anyone in this thread will lead straight to infractions.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

8th June 2013, 14:41

This is an abstract difference. Certainly fascists potentially represent a direct threat to large sections of the proletariat, just as the workers are potentially a revolutionary force. The difference between what a group can potentially become and what they currently are makes all the difference in the world when selecting tactics. Or as an old expression put its, it's the difference between chalk and cheese. We don't try to start insurrections because the proletariat is only potentially a revolutionary force at the present moment, just as we don't pour human resources into spying on and harassing five skinsheads waving swastikas in the midst of a large metropolitan area somewhere because, while potentially at some point in the future a threat to the existence of entire ethnicities, they would be little more than a nuisance. Neither should we risk the physical safety or jeopardize the legal status of comrades by encouraging them to assault those skinheads. This isn't a question of principle, but of judging the tasks at hand in the present conjecture. Different circumstances -- a society where tens of thousands of fascists are organizing on city streets -- require a different prognosis.

At the time Trotsky was writing about the rise of fascism, fascists were a massive and organized threat counterposed to a radicalized working class that was highly mobilized and had been engaged in escalating struggle for the previous decade. he called for workers' militias to combat fascism in Western Europe. That analysis made sense at the time. But it certainly doesn't make sense at the present juncture. It would take an incredibly tortured analysis of American politics to suggest that fascist movements are any kind of threat to American workers at the present juncture, much less more of a threat than police forces. In fact, one of the pay-offs of Trotsky's analysis is that in the epoch of decay, fascism represents the leading edge of a general trend in the breakdown of bourgeois law and order. That analysis is over 70 years old. We've reached a stage where law enforcement in many (but certainly not all) respects is identical to the brownshirts. Except that law enforcement is present on every city block. Which is why I've made it a point throughout to bring them up constantly as a basis for comparison.

Alright, I understand your point, but you seem to seriously underestimate the danger that fascism presently poses. I am not talking about five idiots waving swastikas, nor do I think we should waste our resources into hunting such people down. But when fascists (at least European ones) attack Roma communities, or LGBT pride marches etc., they become a direct threat, and one that needs to be dealt with.

Perhaps, in turn, I am underestimating the danger posed by the police, but even so, fighting the police is rather more difficult than fighting fascists and other violent reactionaries. But I think it still needs to be done in some situations, when the police are trying to round up "illegal immigrants" for example.

The Feral Underclass

8th June 2013, 15:01

You do understand that "sensitive" has a linguistic meaning transcending the idea of "gentle" or "delicate"? In the context of my post, I was hoping you'd pick up on the idea that "sensitive to" is synonymous with "attuned to" or "aware of" or "detecting with one's senses." So I am hardly prepared to be lectured by you about careful reading.

I refer you back to my original point.

The rest of your post is just more blathering that conflates methods with objectives, quite ironic for somebody who is such an ardent critic of Leninism. And the end goal of fighting a political opponent might not be just to prevent the opponent from realizing their political objectives,

Yes, pretty much that's the only thing that fighting a political opponent is about.

Fighting any political opponent is about ensuring that the opponent doesn't obtain their objectives.

Right...And you cannot achieve the defeat of fascism without force.

but might also be -- as is the case with socialists' approach to fascism and the bourgeois state -- ensuring that the opponent's political position doesn't survive at all, either as an ideology or in any kind of institutionalized form.

Right, and that's why force is the only way to combat fascists.

These objectives are different than the question of tactics, about what to do in the present context to advance ourselves most effectively to a point where our ultimate objectives are met, whether that objective be the more modest one of holding political opponents' influence in check, or the more ambitious one of eliminating a particular ideology altogether.

...I have no idea what you're talking about.

As you note, "These require different tactics and strategies in order for the proletariat to be successful."

But then you undermine this recognition of flexibility when you claim, "To try and claim there is an alternative method of fighting fascists than physically preventing them from organising is liberal and makes you soft on fascism. For the reasons I have given."

We are talking about preventing fascists from organising and having a street presence, or if you prefer surviving as an idea or as an "institutionalised form". That is the nature of this discussion.

So there is only one method of fighting fascism? Really? What do you think educating fellow workers about the real meaning of revolutionary socialism is, and counterposing such a program to fascist wankery is? Not fighting fascism?

When you understand what trying to "educate fellow workers about the real meaning of revolutionary socialism" is about in the context of your political objectives, then it is clear to see that what this is actually about is convincing workers to submit to party line and authority. Your political objectives are not for class organisation, they are for party organisation.

Naturally you may see it as an end in and of itself in terms of defeating fascism as a political opponent, not in the context of liberating working class people from oppressive ideologies and institutions, but in the context of seizing the bourgeois state.

Your belief that it isolates workers is because your political objective is to control them under a party structure. My objective is to provide tactics and ideas to combat things that oppress, alienate and exploit them, and I do that through struggle, i.e. fighting fascists.

The answer to your question, therefore, is no.

What do you think holding counter-demonstrations alongside fascist demonstrations is, while not going as far as to try to "physically prevent" the fascist demonstration? Not fighting fascism?

No, it is not fighting fascism. Having a demonstration that has no contact with fascists is simply having a demonstration. Protests are by their very nature passive resistance.

The fight against fascists requires active, direct objection, otherwise they will just continue to organise and have a street presence.

On the flipside, does it make sense to send people out to physically attack and menace fifty fascist buffoons in a town square somewhere when such flagrant use of violent tactics would alienate masses of workers who are just beginning to radicalize in their workplaces?

The language you employ is telling. Who is "sending people out"? What authority is "sending people out" and what servants are these "people"?

I am not "sending people out," I am simply a worker with other workers responding to fascists organising and having a street presence in my community -- using the only methods that will prevent them from organising and having a street presence.

Obviously that's not something you and your ilk like because it demonstrates an ability for class autonomy that is divergent to party authority. You can't control workers who act independently of your political organising, that's why you call us failures and moralisers and accuse us of grandstanding. This is the level of contempt you have for workers.

In any case, I don't know what "masses" of workers you're referring to, but since when has any one in working class communities been shy or sensitive to violence?

Your answer to these questions represents a failure to engage seriously with how obstacles to proletarian self-emancipation are constant in flux and therefore require flexibility in terms of tactics and prioritizing.

But you have come to this conclusion only because I do not agree with your analysis. The only possible way for me to have "succeeded" and "engaged" would be to agree with you.

Well, I don't agree with you. So I guess we will all have to live with that, and you can call me all the names you want to.

Instead, you substitute grandstanding, posturing, and moralizing by claiming to know The One Way To Fight Fascism In All Times and In All Places (tm). It's the kind of take-it-or-leave-it arrogance that one usually sees in anarchist caricatures of Leninism. And, not surprisingly, contrary to your claim about "the reasons you provided," you have provided zero reason as to why we should artificially limit the scope of our tactics in a fight against fascism to your One True Way. You've just stated it, and instead of providing an argument, attacked as "liberal and weak" anybody who disagrees with you.

Have you ever met a fascist? I'm beginning to get the impression that your experience is incredibly limited on this subject. You appear to have absolutely no point of reference when it comes to understanding the nature of fascists and how they operate.

It isn't a question of "artificially" limiting the scope of your tactics, it's about recognising what tactics will be effective. If you believe that you can actively prevent fascists from organising and having a street presence by staging protests and trying to recruit workers into your party, then what can I can possibly say to you? Go ahead, try. See how effective you will be against people who murder, terrorise and brutalise communities with impunity.

I mean, I'm genuinely trying to work out how I can explain to you that confronting fascists physically is the only way to stop them from organising and having a street presence, but if you, an alleged political operative, can't understand this by your own critical engagement with what a fascist and fascism is and has done in the name of their political organising, then I'm afraid there's nothing I can do for you.

Your posts in this thread are intellectual laziness and stupidity of the highest order. When you combine this with your sneering smugness, your persona on this forum is just over-the-top laughable. This is why I suspect trolling is afoot.

All I can say is thank fuck we are in disagreement. I would clearly be doing something horrendously wrong if we agreed with one another.

The Feral Underclass

8th June 2013, 15:06

It's funny how The Anarchist Tension wants to claim his tiny sect of platformists should be disentangled from the majority of people (in the US at least) who identify as anarchist, but who in The Anarchist Tension's estimation don't take class struggle seriously, while at the same time he insists on grouping anybody who uses the term "vanguard party" together as a politically monolithic bloc. I guess it would be too much to expect him to be sensitive (note the usage of "sensitive" here) to the political differences of anybody outside of his tendency.

Unless vanguard means class organisation rather than party organisation then you are the same. If you want to be considered as different, then be different.

The Feral Underclass

8th June 2013, 15:07

Alright, I understand your point, but you seem to seriously underestimate the danger that fascism presently poses.

Most likely because he sermonises from his armchair.

The Feral Underclass

8th June 2013, 15:12

To avoid misunderstandings it needs to be pointed out here that it's not some kind of universal 'trotskyist position' that fascists should be allowed to have a street presence 'at this stage' or any other damn stage.

Yes, there are some Trotskyists who are not as liberal as others. The AWL for example are much more able to see that fighting fascists can only be effectively achieved through combat, but then again they still have the overall objective of party organisation, rather than class organisation, which is the fundamental issue.

Lucretia

8th June 2013, 17:09

I refer you back to my original point.

Yes, pretty much that's the only thing that fighting a political opponent is about.

Right...And you cannot achieve the defeat of fascism without force.

Right, and that's why force is the only way to combat fascists.

...I have no idea what you're talking about.

We are talking about preventing fascists from organising and having a street presence, or if you prefer surviving as an idea or as an "institutionalised form". That is the nature of this discussion.

When you understand what trying to "educate fellow workers about the real meaning of revolutionary socialism" is about in the context of your political objectives, then it is clear to see that what this is actually about is convincing workers to submit to party line and authority. Your political objectives are not for class organisation, they are for party organisation.

Naturally you may see it as an end in and of itself in terms of defeating fascism as a political opponent, not in the context of liberating working class people from oppressive ideologies and institutions, but in the context of seizing the bourgeois state.

Your belief that it isolates workers is because your political objective is to control them under a party structure. My objective is to provide tactics and ideas to combat things that oppress, alienate and exploit them, and I do that through struggle, i.e. fighting fascists.

The answer to your question, therefore, is no.

No, it is not fighting fascism. Having a demonstration that has no contact with fascists is simply having a demonstration. Protests are by their very nature passive resistance.

The fight against fascists requires active, direct objection, otherwise they will just continue to organise and have a street presence.

The language you employ is telling. Who is "sending people out"? What authority is "sending people out" and what servants are these "people"?

I am not "sending people out," I am simply a worker with other workers responding to fascists organising and having a street presence in my community -- using the only methods that will prevent them from organising and having a street presence.

Obviously that's not something you and your ilk like because it demonstrates an ability for class autonomy that is divergent to party authority. You can't control workers who act independently of your political organising, that's why you call us failures and moralisers and accuse us of grandstanding. This is the level of contempt you have for workers.

In any case, I don't know what "masses" of workers you're referring to, but since when has any one in working class communities been shy or sensitive to violence?

But you have come to this conclusion only because I do not agree with your analysis. The only possible way for me to have "succeeded" and "engaged" would be to agree with you.

Well, I don't agree with you. So I guess we will all have to live with that, and you can call me all the names you want to.

Have you ever met a fascist? I'm beginning to get the impression that your experience is incredibly limited on this subject. You appear to have absolutely no point of reference when it comes to understanding the nature of fascists and how they operate.

It isn't a question of "artificially" limiting the scope of your tactics, it's about recognising what tactics will be effective. If you believe that you can actively prevent fascists from organising and having a street presence by staging protests and trying to recruit workers into your party, then what can I can possibly say to you? Go ahead, try. See how effective you will be against people who murder, terrorise and brutalise communities with impunity.

I mean, I'm genuinely trying to work out how I can explain to you that confronting fascists physically is the only way to stop them from organising and having a street presence, but if you, an alleged political operative, can't understand this by your own critical engagement with what a fascist and fascism is and has done in the name of their political organising, then I'm afraid there's nothing I can do for you.

All I can say is thank fuck we are in disagreement. I would clearly be doing something horrendously wrong if we agreed with one another.

You refer me back to your original point about my use of the word "sensitive"? Your original point was baseless, rooted as it was in a misunderstanding of my use of the word, as I explained in my response. Why would anybody want to refer back to your original point when your original point was full of shit, and when you have said nothing subsequently that might convince people that it was not full of shit?

You and I both agree that fascism, along with the bourgeois state, cannot be defeated once and for all except by force. You keep repeating it as though you're making some kind of damning point against my argument. In fact, you're not. Permanently and decisively eliminating either fascism or the bourgeois state is not the same thing as struggling against it. So the idea of "brute force" being the only legitimate tactic to use in struggling against fascism is about as tenable as the claim that, because the bourgeois state can only be defeated by force, the only legitimate tactic to pursue against it open and violent insurrection.

We are not talking about "preventing fascists from organising and having a street presence." We are talking about "preventing fascists from organizing and having a street presence" by engaging in a very specific tactic: employing what you term "brute force." There are countless examples of fascists and other reactionary elements attempting to hold demonstrates, and retreating in the face of overwhelming numbers of people organized and mobilized against them. Such a tactic, which is frequently successful in "preventing fascists from organising and having a street presence" entails not engaging in brute force as a chosen tactic (though perhaps used defensively by specific individuals who themselves might be attacked first). Instead, it involves engaging in one of the other tactics you want to claim doesn't exist: organizing a counter-demonstration for the purpose of having a political confrontation -- "confronting them physically," as you say, though not with the purpose of employing "brute force" (these are two DIFFERENT things). The question of choosing to employ "brute force" and "violence" as a tactic outside of the context of immediate self-defense is one that must be made with extreme sensitivity to the current level of class struggle. It cannot simply be read off from the fact that you hate fascists and want to grandstand on the issue so much that you don't give a flying fuck about how the tactics you advocate relate to the working class at any particular moment. Even as you rail against "liberals" and "liberalism," your politics reeks of a kind of bourgeois-individualist self-indulgence that is stunning to behold.

You inquire about whether I have had any real-life experiences with fascists and other extreme reactionary elements, as though my understanding of the necessity of flexible tactics betrays a kind of naivete, almost as if to imply that I think we can reason with fascists or some such nonsense. Anybody who has been active in leftist politics for longer than a brief period of time has had direct confrontations with fascists or other extremely reactionary types, so obviously I have.

The point you seem not to understand is that defeating fascism isn't something "the radical left" or "revolutionary anarchists" or "orthodox Troskyists" are going to do on their own. Only the working class is capable of doing it, so it is very much connected to the issues of party building, raising workers' consciousness, staging demonstrations, and the other things you want to rubbish in a way that again speaks to a kind of anti-Leninist elitism that pretends that you are in some sort of vanguard of smashing fascism because you are brilliant enough to understand that it's just a question of whether to be violent or not.

The nonsense you keep spewing about parties "controlling" people has absolutely nothing to do with the appropriate role of violence in a revolutionary movement. That you keep trying to interject it in the argument, though, raises serious doubts about whether you're actually debating in good faith, or whether you're just trying to set things up to grind your ideological axe pertaining to a completely separate topic.

Lucretia

8th June 2013, 17:31

Alright, I understand your point, but you seem to seriously underestimate the danger that fascism presently poses. I am not talking about five idiots waving swastikas, nor do I think we should waste our resources into hunting such people down. But when fascists (at least European ones) attack Roma communities, or LGBT pride marches etc., they become a direct threat, and one that needs to be dealt with.

Perhaps, in turn, I am underestimating the danger posed by the police, but even so, fighting the police is rather more difficult than fighting fascists and other violent reactionaries. But I think it still needs to be done in some situations, when the police are trying to round up "illegal immigrants" for example.

You have to understand that in the United States, the five idiots waving swastikas is basically all we have. Just as most people on the left have been channeled into the two-party system, most on the right have as well. The amazing ability of capital to quickly co-opt discontent is one of the distinguishing features of twentieth-century American political history, to some extent enabled by the country's economically and politically hegemonic role in global affairs. Obviously in contexts where rightists are systematically harassing and attacking entire communities of people, appropriate measures of self-defense would be necessary. But this just hammers the point home once more: context is decisive, not moralizing positions taken for the purpose of posturing. Please do not misinterpret my position as pacifism. I am not taking a principle stand against violence: I am opposing TAT's "principled" stand for violence regardless of context.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

8th June 2013, 18:00

Yes, there are some Trotskyists who are not as liberal as others. The AWL for example are much more able to see that fighting fascists can only be effectively achieved through combat, but then again they still have the overall objective of party organisation, rather than class organisation, which is the fundamental issue.

Isn't the AWL the outfit Matgamna leads nowadays? I am not that familiar with their line on fascism, but otherwise they're the most glorious example of liberal Trotskyism.

When you understand what trying to "educate fellow workers about the real meaning of revolutionary socialism" is about in the context of your political objectives, then it is clear to see that what this is actually about is convincing workers to submit to party line and authority. Your political objectives are not for class organisation, they are for party organisation.

The proletarian party is the political organisation of the working class. You can't seriously talk about political work among the proletariat and then denouncing every organisation that tries to do so with the old canard about substitutionism and whatnot.

You have to understand that in the United States, the five idiots waving swastikas is basically all we have. Just as most people on the left have been channeled into the two-party system, most on the right have as well. The amazing ability of capital to quickly co-opt discontent is one of the distinguishing features of twentieth-century American political history, to some extent enabled by the country's economically and politically hegemonic role in global affairs. Obviously in contexts where rightists are systematically harassing and attacking entire communities of people, appropriate measures of self-defense would be necessary. But this just hammers the point home once more: context is decisive, not moralizing positions taken for the purpose of posturing. Please do not misinterpret my position as pacifism. I am not taking a principle stand against violence: I am opposing TAT's "principled" stand for violence regardless of context.

I realise that; I was just trying to make a broader point. The murdered comrade was from France, where fascist violence seems to have exploded recently.

The Feral Underclass

8th June 2013, 18:05

You refer me back to your original point about my use of the word "sensitive"? Your original point was baseless, rooted as it was in a misunderstanding of my use of the word, as I explained in my response. Why would anybody want to refer back to your original point when your original point was full of shit, and when you have said nothing subsequently that might convince people that it was not full of shit?

Nevertheless, I refer you back to my original point.

If you want to address the actual point I made, rather than some nonsense about interpretation (which doesn't change anything), instead of trying to be offensive, then do so, otherwise stop wasting your time.

You and I both agree that fascism, along with the bourgeois state, cannot be defeated once and for all except by force. You keep repeating it as though you're making some kind of damning point against my argument. In fact, you're not. Permanently and decisively eliminating either fascism or the bourgeois state is not the same thing as struggling against it. So the idea of "brute force" being the only legitimate tactic to use in struggling against fascism is about as tenable as the claim that, because the bourgeois state can only be defeated by force, the only legitimate tactic to pursue against it open and violent insurrection.

This discussion is about how you prevent fascists from organising and having a street presence. That is what we are talking about.

You are the one that brought the whole bourgeois state and decisive victories into it, not me. Yes, the bourgeois state can only be overcome through brute force, so too can fascists. Why do we not, therefore, employ the same tactics at the same time? Because the struggles and dynamics are different.

We are not talking about "preventing fascists from organising and having a street presence."

Yes, actually we are.

We are talking about "preventing fascists from organizing and having a street presence" by engaging in a very specific tactic: employing what you term "brute force."

Yes, because that's the only way you can prevent fascists from organising and having a street presence.

There are countless examples of fascists and other reactionary elements attempting to hold demonstrates, and retreating in the face of overwhelming numbers of people organized and mobilized against them. Such a tactic, which is frequently successful in "preventing fascists from organising and having a street presence" entails not engaging in brute force as a chosen tactic (though perhaps used defensively by specific individuals who themselves might be attacked first). Instead, it involves engaging in one of the other tactics you want to claim doesn't exist:

You've got all confused again. I've never denied the existence of other methods of organising against fascists. What I have repeatedly brought into question is the effectiveness of such tactics in preventing them from organising and having a street presence.

organizing a counter-demonstration for the purpose of having a political confrontation -- "confronting them physically," as you say, though not with the purpose of employing "brute force" (these are two DIFFERENT things).

Not as far as dealing with fascists is concerned.

The question of choosing to employ "brute force" and "violence" as a tactic outside of the context of immediate self-defense is one that must be made with extreme sensitivity to the current level of class struggle.

And I disagree.

It cannot simply be read off from the fact that you hate fascists and want to grandstand on the issue so much that you don't give a flying fuck about how the tactics you advocate relate to the working class at any particular moment. Even as you rail against "liberals" and "liberalism," your politics reeks of a kind of bourgeois-individualist self-indulgence that is stunning to behold.

But as we've already established the only way I could possibly "give a flying fuck" is if I were to agree with you.

The idea that I could give a fuck about how tactics relate to the working class and not agree with your conclusion is beyond your scope of understanding.

That's not my problem.

You inquire about whether I have had any real-life experiences with fascists and other extreme reactionary elements, as though my understanding of the necessity of flexible tactics betrays a kind of naivete, almost as if to imply that I think we can reason with fascists or some such nonsense.

You are naive. You may not be thinking that you can reason with fascists, but that's essentially what you're arguing.

Anybody who has been active in leftist politics for longer than a brief period of time has had direct confrontations with fascists or other extremely reactionary types, so obviously I have.

Did you wave a placard at them?

The point you seem not to understand is that defeating fascism isn't something "the radical left" or "revolutionary anarchists" or "orthodox Troskyists" are going to do on their own.

I fully understand that, unfortunately for you.

Only the working class is capable of doing it, so it is very much connected to the issues of party building, raising workers' consciousness, staging demonstrations, and the other things you want to rubbish in a way that again speaks to a kind of anti-Leninist elitism that pretends that you are in some sort of vanguard of smashing fascism because you are brilliant enough to understand that it's just a question of whether to be violent or not.

"Party building" is the fundamental error in your outlook. You prioritise party organisation over class organisation, and that's why you are having such a hard time understanding that class consciousness and militancy is built through struggle as autonomous workers in solidarity with each other.

The basis of your thinking is to build the party so that you can control struggle in order to lay claim to the bourgeois state, thereby removing autonomy from the class.

The only reason you are pushing this "it isolates the workers" and "you have to be sensitive to class struggle" is because you want power, not for the class, but for the party, despite your slogans.

I'm not interested in party building, I am interested in 'class' building. In other words my objective is participating in struggles within my community and workplace that spreads ideas, is able to defend the use of certain tactics, build confidence and solidarity, and take direct action.

I don't take an instrumentalist view towards my politics, I organise so that I and my fellow workers are in solidarity with each other against what threatens our interests, so that we can build a genuine counter-power, putting us in a position to seize the means of production and then reorganise society. I do that by, at times, coming into conflict with prevailing ideas. It's through those conflicts, manifested in debate and solidarity, that my fellow workers are won over to ideas and tactics, and find the confidence to act with me in their own interests, against fascists, capital and the state.

Fighting fascists [effectively] is necessary at all times, and unfortunately winning victories over fascists effectively means beating them into a pulp whenever they rear their shaven heads.

The nonsense you keep spewing about parties "controlling" people has absolutely nothing to do with the appropriate role of violence in a revolutionary movement.

Yet here you are concerned that violent tactics may hinder your abilities to "build the party."

That you keep trying to interject it in the argument, though, raises serious doubts about whether you're actually debating in good faith, or whether you're just trying to set things up to grind your ideological axe pertaining to a completely separate topic.

Blah, blah, blah. What I'm actually doing is demonstrating the reasoning behind your objections to using violence against fascists. In other words, I'm taking a holistic approach to criticising your views. I'm sorry you're having difficulty dealing with the complexities of that.

You have a political objective and that political objective informs your tactics and strategies, that's why you oppose my views. My methods means your political objectives can't be realised.

That is the bottom line here. Yes, I have an ideological axe to grind and this discussion is precisely why. It is a prime example of your belief in party organisation over class organisation. This is a fundamental problem with Leninism and why it should be opposed.

The Feral Underclass

8th June 2013, 18:09

Double Post.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

8th June 2013, 22:28

You don't know what you're talking about.
So, because I told you that the British SWP doesn't represent all of Trotskyism (despite their ritualistic invocation of his name on occasion), and that it's crude to lump us all together under their umbrella, I'm the one who is ignorant? Please explain how you came to such a conclusion. Or if not, I only have one response: Troll harder, why don't you?

The Feral Underclass

8th June 2013, 23:15

So, because I told you that the British SWP doesn't represent all of Trotskyism (despite their ritualistic invocation of his name on occasion), and that it's crude to lump us all together under their umbrella, I'm the one who is ignorant? Please explain how you came to such a conclusion. Or if not, I only have one response: Troll harder, why don't you?

I came to the conclusion because your posts are nonsense and you make video game references to try and prove your point.

Your opinions about the SWP are irrelevant. Whether your sect of Trot calls their sect of Trot actual Trots, it doesn't alter the basic nature of what I'm talking about, i.e. you, Lucretia, the SWP all prioritise party organisation over class organisation.

I suggest you read my posts and deal with my argument. Alternatively you could just stop trying to play with the grown ups.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

9th June 2013, 00:18

I came to the conclusion because your posts are nonsense and you make video game references to try and prove your point.
I admit my reference to a long forgotten (and bad) game was unusual for me, but I fail to see how that makes everything I wrote "nonsense". Outside of some perfunctory one-sentence replies, you have barely replied to me at all. You completely ignored my second post, for instance. I, on the other hand, have been trying to meet you halfway and write at least something substantive to rebut your points, even when you refuse to back them up. If you want seriously want to make the case that I write nonsense, try isolating and critiquing my logic, not my metaphors. By themselves, they prove nothing other than the fact that I once played a bad game.

And if I said something that confused you, don't hesitate to ask me for more details. I mean, you're already caught in a contradiction. You say my posts are nonsense, but you go on to respond to the argument I was making, albeit poorly. Obviously, there was something of "sense" in what I said to you, wouldn't you agree? Otherwise, why did you even bother replying? Your "conclusion" is bunk.

Your opinions about the SWP are irrelevant. Whether your sect of Trot calls their sect of Trot actual Trots, it doesn't alter the basic nature of what I'm talking about, i.e. you, Lucretia, the SWP all prioritise party organisation over class organisation.
Actually, since I was rebutting your attempts to lump all Trotskyists together, my opinions of the British SWP are highly relevant. I do not support the SWP in the least, though they possess some interesting intellectuals there. This "basic nature" you're talking about is also something that I oppose. You know nothing about my politics personally, you only see that I am a Trotskyist. I fail to see how your lack of vision on this basic point is my problem, or indicative that I support the party exercising a tyranny over the working class, or that the latter is irrelevant. It's hardly my fault that you're apparently incapable of making political distinctions.

I suggest you read my posts and deal with my argument. Alternatively you could just stop trying to play with the grown ups.
But I don't believe that your argument applies to me, Lucretia, or Trotskyism at all, so I don't have to deal with it. What you're arguing against has no trace in my own politics. Furthermore, it's clear to me that you know nothing about Trotskyism. Actually, what was your argument again? That context matters little in struggling against fascism, or the class struggle in general? That all "Trots" are counterrevolutionary state-fetishists or thugs? On both of these points, I don't think you have proven your case beyond your own dogged insistence that you're right.

"Grown ups"? You're resorting to ageism? Really? For me, this only showcases the bankruptcy of your argument method. You have no idea of who I am beyond this forum. And to be quite frank, your statement gives me, and perhaps viewers, a rather different idea of whom needs to be more "grown up" here. I'd tell you what it is, but...ah, what the hell. You can probably figure it out. After all, you're older than me, right?

The Feral Underclass

9th June 2013, 09:15

I admit my reference to a long forgotten (and bad) game was unusual for me, but I fail to see how that makes everything I wrote "nonsense". Outside of some perfunctory one-sentence replies, you have barely replied to me at all. You completely ignored my second post, for instance. I, on the other hand, have been trying to meet you halfway and write at least something substantive to rebut your points, even when you refuse to back them up. If you want seriously want to make the case that I write nonsense, try isolating and critiquing my logic, not my metaphors. By themselves, they prove nothing other than the fact that I once played a bad game.

And if I said something that confused you, don't hesitate to ask me for more details. I mean, you're already caught in a contradiction. You say my posts are nonsense, but you go on to respond to the argument I was making, albeit poorly. Obviously, there was something of "sense" in what I said to you, wouldn't you agree? Otherwise, why did you even bother replying? Your "conclusion" is bunk.

I can't believe you wasted your time writing this. What is it I'm supposed to say to you?

Actually, since I was rebutting your attempts to lump all Trotskyists together, my opinions of the British SWP are highly relevant. I do not support the SWP in the least, though they possess some interesting intellectuals there.

Whether or not you support the SWP doesn't change the form and methods of your ideas.

This "basic nature" you're talking about is also something that I oppose. You know nothing about my politics personally, you only see that I am a Trotskyist.

So you reject the party model?

I fail to see how your lack of vision on this basic point is my problem, or indicative that I support the party exercising a tyranny over the working class, or that the latter is irrelevant.

So you don't reject the party model? Well, then you are just like Lucretia and the SWP.

And I never said anything about "tyranny."

It's hardly my fault that you're apparently incapable of making political distinctions.

Political distinctions about what?

But I don't believe that your argument applies to me, Lucretia, or Trotskyism at all, so I don't have to deal with it.

How convenient for you.

What you're arguing against has no trace in my own politics.

I'm convinced that you have no idea what I'm arguing.

Furthermore, it's clear to me that you know nothing about Trotskyism. Actually, what was your argument again?

Highlight added.

My argument is that Leninists prioritise party organisation over class organisation, thereby negating the autonomy of the working class to act independently, thus making my views on fighting fascism alien to the likes of you and Lucretia.

That context matters little in struggling against fascism, or the class struggle in general? That all "Trots" are counterrevolutionary state-fetishists or thugs? On both of these points, I don't think you have proven your case beyond your own dogged insistence that you're right.

No, that's not close to what my argument is.

"Grown ups"? You're resorting to ageism? Really? For me, this only showcases the bankruptcy of your argument method. You have no idea of who I am beyond this forum. And to be quite frank, your statement gives me, and perhaps viewers, a rather different idea of whom needs to be more "grown up" here. I'd tell you what it is, but...ah, what the hell. You can probably figure it out. After all, you're older than me, right?

I never said that you had to be more grown up. I merely implied you were out of your depth, which your last post demonstrates brilliantly.

Lucretia

9th June 2013, 13:29

Nevertheless, I refer you back to my original point.

If you want to address the actual point I made, rather than some nonsense about interpretation (which doesn't change anything), instead of trying to be offensive, then do so, otherwise stop wasting your time.

This discussion is about how you prevent fascists from organising and having a street presence. That is what we are talking about.

You are the one that brought the whole bourgeois state and decisive victories into it, not me. Yes, the bourgeois state can only be overcome through brute force, so too can fascists. Why do we not, therefore, employ the same tactics at the same time? Because the struggles and dynamics are different.

Yes, actually we are.

Yes, because that's the only way you can prevent fascists from organising and having a street presence.

You've got all confused again. I've never denied the existence of other methods of organising against fascists. What I have repeatedly brought into question is the effectiveness of such tactics in preventing them from organising and having a street presence.

Not as far as dealing with fascists is concerned.

And I disagree.

But as we've already established the only way I could possibly "give a flying fuck" is if I were to agree with you.

The idea that I could give a fuck about how tactics relate to the working class and not agree with your conclusion is beyond your scope of understanding.

That's not my problem.

You are naive. You may not be thinking that you can reason with fascists, but that's essentially what you're arguing.

Did you wave a placard at them?

I fully understand that, unfortunately for you.

"Party building" is the fundamental error in your outlook. You prioritise party organisation over class organisation, and that's why you are having such a hard time understanding that class consciousness and militancy is built through struggle as autonomous workers in solidarity with each other.

The basis of your thinking is to build the party so that you can control struggle in order to lay claim to the bourgeois state, thereby removing autonomy from the class.

The only reason you are pushing this "it isolates the workers" and "you have to be sensitive to class struggle" is because you want power, not for the class, but for the party, despite your slogans.

I'm not interested in party building, I am interested in 'class' building. In other words my objective is participating in struggles within my community and workplace that spreads ideas, is able to defend the use of certain tactics, build confidence and solidarity, and take direct action.

I don't take an instrumentalist view towards my politics, I organise so that I and my fellow workers are in solidarity with each other against what threatens our interests, so that we can build a genuine counter-power, putting us in a position to seize the means of production and then reorganise society. I do that by, at times, coming into conflict with prevailing ideas. It's through those conflicts, manifested in debate and solidarity, that my fellow workers are won over to ideas and tactics, and find the confidence to act with me in their own interests, against fascists, capital and the state.

Fighting fascists [effectively] is necessary at all times, and unfortunately winning victories over fascists effectively means beating them into a pulp whenever they rear their shaven heads.

Yet here you are concerned that violent tactics may hinder your abilities to "build the party."

Blah, blah, blah. What I'm actually doing is demonstrating the reasoning behind your objections to using violence against fascists. In other words, I'm taking a holistic approach to criticising your views. I'm sorry you're having difficulty dealing with the complexities of that.

You have a political objective and that political objective informs your tactics and strategies, that's why you oppose my views. My methods means your political objectives can't be realised.

That is the bottom line here. Yes, I have an ideological axe to grind and this discussion is precisely why. It is a prime example of your belief in party organisation over class organisation. This is a fundamental problem with Leninism and why it should be opposed.

I don't see much point in continuing the debate with you when your position -- that deploying "brute force" is the only effective way of denying fascists ownership of the streets (NOT decisively defeating them once and for all, which is a separate issue you seem to want to keep conflating with episodes of confrontation) -- when you can find countless examples in the revolutionary press of fascists and other reactionaries backing down when confronted, without brute force, by opposing demonstrations that far outnumbered their own. It turns out that fascists aren't suicidal, and understand (sometimes) an obvious point that you fail to grasp: when you're about to get your ass handed to you a crowd 300 times your size, you just pack your bags and go home to fight another day. There are some episodes, of course, where rightist groups have chosen to attack some participants in those much larger demonstrations, but even then, this is different than choosing brute force as a tactic. I have stated very clearly that that armed self-defense should be considered differently than actively instigating and deliberately deploying brute force as a chosen tactic.

So at this point in the discussion, you're just choosing to adhere to your position of "only brute force works" regardless of the existence of the countless examples which disprove them. In other words, there's literally not a damn thing I could say, not a bit of reasoning or evidence I could provide to you, that could get you to change your mind. Like a creationist who thinks that fossils were created to appear millions of years old to test the faith of true believers. I hope all outside readers can see what I mean when I describe your position as moralizing and sermonizing. It is quite literally impervious to critical thinking and relies on a kind of visceral grandstanding. It's a good thing you weren't in charge of the Red Army after October. You'd have charged head-on into white forces that far outnumbered you, lest at any given point in time you "yield ownership of the battlefield to the whites." I can already see you baffled by this comparison, but it's an illustration of the same principle you've been advancing throughout this entire thread. And it shows just hos ridiculous your position is.

As for your caricatures of party building, which would really require the thread be split off into another cesspool where you can spew your effluvia, one could easily respond that, while my position reflects an understanding of the party as encompassing the most class conscious workers collectively organized into a network of solidarity capable of waging the class struggle, your criticism reflects a desire to lend credence to backward elements of the working class (including ones sympathetic to fascism) by pretending they should have an equal say in the revolutionary movement. Kind of like the special olympics of revolutionary politics, your scenario doesn't want to take the position that any worker could possibly get things wrong and therefore shouldn't be included in the "vanguard" (thus basically making the entire class the vanguard). We once more see you reasoning from moral positions, not from critical analysis.

The Feral Underclass

9th June 2013, 13:46

What does "backing down" mean? There have been countless demonstrations in the UK that have seen the EDL or BNP back down, but it hasn't stopped them from organising or having a street presence. In fact in many cases, it's embolden them!

Yes, there are countless other methods you could use, yes they may have even resulted in fascists "backing down," but it has not effectively prevented them from organising or having a street presence has it, since they keep doing it?

In a community, when fascists organise you go out and you stop them from organising by employing the only effective tactic -- violence. Does that mean they are defeated decisively? No. You can have as many demonstrations in your community, but it isn't going to stop fascists from organising or having a street presence. Beating the shit out of them will.

As for your caricatures of party building, which would really require the thread be split off into another cesspool where you can spew your effluvia, one could easily respond that, while my position reflects an understanding of the party as encompassing the most class conscious workers collectively organized into a network of solidarity capable of waging the class struggle, your criticism reflects a desire to lend credence to backward elements of the working class (including ones sympathetic to fascism) by pretending they should have an equal say in the revolutionary movement. Kind of like the special olympics of revolutionary politics, your scenario doesn't want to take the position that any worker could possibly get things wrong and therefore shouldn't be included in the "vanguard" (thus basically making the entire class the vanguard). We once more see you reasoning from moral positions, not from critical analysis.

None of that follows from my position except in your imagination.

Decolonize The Left

9th June 2013, 14:57

I don't see much point in continuing the debate with you when your position -- that deploying "brute force" is the only effective way of denying fascists ownership of the streets (NOT decisively defeating them once and for all, which is a separate issue you seem to want to keep conflating with episodes of confrontation) -- when you can find countless examples in the revolutionary press of fascists and other reactionaries backing down when confronted, without brute force, by opposing demonstrations that far outnumbered their own. It turns out that fascists aren't suicidal, and understand (sometimes) an obvious point that you fail to grasp: when you're about to get your ass handed to you a crowd 300 times your size, you just pack your bags and go home to fight another day. There are some episodes, of course, where rightist groups have chosen to attack some participants in those much larger demonstrations, but even then, this is different than choosing brute force as a tactic. I have stated very clearly that that armed self-defense should be considered differently than actively instigating and deliberately deploying brute force as a chosen tactic.

I hate to say this, but you are proving TAT's point here. You have just said that, as an example: fascists have a demo. Then a whole but of other people show up and the fascists back down. You have concluded from this example that the fascists backed down because they didn't want to be physically injured. This is an adequate conclusion.

But, in concluding this, you have effectively supported TAT's point: brute force is necessary when dealing with fascists. Because what you have said is that merely the threat of brute force can cause a fascist demo to end. Hence, without there being some (or many) examples of brute force, the fascists would have no reason to back down fearing injury.

My personal point is simple (and while I think TAT may disagree with it partly, he accepts it in general): diversity of tactics is necessary in any war or battle for victory. Without evidence of a willingness to use brute force, the threat of brute force has no... force. Hence it is not always absolutely necessary to engage in violence but it is absolutely necessary to keep that possibility on the table at all times, and this means employing it when appropriate. Anything less than this is simply poor strategy and limits the effectiveness of any campaign.

Cheers.

The Feral Underclass

9th June 2013, 15:14

I hate to say this, but you are proving TAT's point here. You have just said that, as an example: fascists have a demo. Then a whole but of other people show up and the fascists back down. You have concluded from this example that the fascists backed down because they didn't want to be physically injured. This is an adequate conclusion.

But, in concluding this, you have effectively supported TAT's point: brute force is necessary when dealing with fascists. Because what you have said is that merely the threat of brute force can cause a fascist demo to end. Hence, without there being some (or many) examples of brute force, the fascists would have no reason to back down fearing injury.

You are always able to make your posts so elegantly, compared to my pubish attitude :)

My personal point is simple (and while I think TAT may disagree with it partly, he accepts it in general): diversity of tactics is necessary in any war or battle for victory. Without evidence of a willingness to use brute force, the threat of brute force has no... force. Hence it is not always absolutely necessary to engage in violence but it is absolutely necessary to keep that possibility on the table at all times, and this means employing it when appropriate. Anything less than this is simply poor strategy and limits the effectiveness of any campaign.

I would argue that physical combat against fascists should always be employed, even in an immediate situation. To prevent fascists from organising or having a street presence there must always be the actual, continuous application of pressure. I cannot agree that any tactic other than physical force can effectively keep that pressure on, and keep them off the streets.

I suppose I could concede that the threat of force may be useful as an immediate goal in an immediate protest setting, but as an intermediate objective of preventing them from being on the streets and organising, actual force is the only effective way of achieving that.

The threat of force is always mediated by the state in any case, which allows posturing from both sides without any real threat of violence. It is only when there is physical contact that we are able to effectively challenge them.

It is the difference between knowing that if you go out you will be hidden behind a cop and knowing that if you go out you are going to have your face smashed in. In other words, there must always be an escalating element to our activity towards fascists, otherwise they will just carry on doing what they do.

Lucretia

11th June 2013, 00:39

I hate to say this, but you are proving TAT's point here. You have just said that, as an example: fascists have a demo. Then a whole but of other people show up and the fascists back down. You have concluded from this example that the fascists backed down because they didn't want to be physically injured. This is an adequate conclusion.

But, in concluding this, you have effectively supported TAT's point: brute force is necessary when dealing with fascists. Because what you have said is that merely the threat of brute force can cause a fascist demo to end. Hence, without there being some (or many) examples of brute force, the fascists would have no reason to back down fearing injury.

My personal point is simple (and while I think TAT may disagree with it partly, he accepts it in general): diversity of tactics is necessary in any war or battle for victory. Without evidence of a willingness to use brute force, the threat of brute force has no... force. Hence it is not always absolutely necessary to engage in violence but it is absolutely necessary to keep that possibility on the table at all times, and this means employing it when appropriate. Anything less than this is simply poor strategy and limits the effectiveness of any campaign.

Cheers.

There's an elementary distinction you're failing to draw between "confronting people physically" and "using brute force." It's one thing to intimidate a group with sheer numbers. It's another thing to initiate a physical assault on them. And it's something else entirely to have the view that only the latter, not the former, is effective at and should as a rule be utilized when confronting reactionary elements attempting to demonstrate or organize publicly. TAT (whom I shall not engage anymore in this thread) is trying to collapse the two, and through a pretty lame sleight of hand, trying to pretend that because a person doesn't favor the third option, then he must favor hiding in a basement somewhere and letting fascists do what they want unchallenged. You're falling for it.

Nobody here is arguing that we should never be willing to consider the use of violence, as a rule, when confronting fascists, so the point you make about being willing to consider using it is attacking a pacifist strawman. Another important point that you and TAT are failing to understand is that facists engaging in a piddly little demonstration, swarmed and outnumbered by a mass of protestors might send a louder, and more effective, message to onlooking workers about the il(legitimacy) of fascist views. Then again, it might not. It all depends upon evaluating the state of the workers' movement at the time, and tailoring tactics to suit the context. One cannot make this decision by just beating one's chest about the need for violence, and pretending that it's a concrete materialist analysis of the tasks confronting revolutionaries. That's just mindless moralism.

Anarchist Skinhead

11th June 2013, 01:57

now.. where did I put that ice pick....

The Feral Underclass

11th June 2013, 12:28

Lucretia

11th June 2013, 18:01

now.. where did I put that ice pick....

Whatever you think of "Trotskyism" or "Leninism" (or at least the caricatures you no doubt have of these ideas), I think your post says all that needs to be said about the politics of you and your fellow travelers in this thread. Referencing, in a celebratory fashion, a tool with which Stalinist agents murdered in cold blood a man who was fiercely advocating for a mass political revolution by the working class to overthrow the Stalinist bureaucracy in the Soviet Union really is the logical conclusion of a political perspective that fetishizes violence (in a way that only a Stalinist could love) and moralistically places it on a pedestal above the political principles of working-class struggle and self-emancipation.

bcbm

12th June 2013, 09:50

i think you assume too much

The Feral Underclass

12th June 2013, 21:59

Whatever you think of "Trotskyism" or "Leninism" (or at least the caricatures you no doubt have of these ideas), I think your post says all that needs to be said about the politics of you and your fellow travelers in this thread. Referencing, in a celebratory fashion, a tool with which Stalinist agents murdered in cold blood a man who was fiercely advocating for a mass political revolution by the working class to overthrow the Stalinist bureaucracy in the Soviet Union really is the logical conclusion of a political perspective that fetishizes violence (in a way that only a Stalinist could love) and moralistically places it on a pedestal above the political principles of working-class struggle and self-emancipation.

You mean the man who ordered the massive state repression against and killing of hundreds, if not thousands of anarchists? The man who countless times tried to have Makhno assassinated and would have certainly put him before a firing squad had he caught him? The man who bombarded the workers and anarchists of Kronstadt with artillery?

Your hypocrisy drips from every, single word you spew. You accuse us of fetishising violence and in the same breath defend one of the most violent men against anarchists that's ever lived. Why should we care about a man who saw our comrades put to death? He got what he deserved.

You are full of shit! And you know what the saddest part of that is? You don't even realise it.

Ele'ill

13th June 2013, 04:11

There's an elementary distinction you're failing to draw between "confronting people physically" and "using brute force." It's one thing to intimidate a group with sheer numbers. It's another thing to initiate a physical assault on them.

brute force is the pacifistic hysteria laden way of saying 'confronting people physically' and 'physical assault' is a rough legal term that isn't really advantageous to use as a radical

Decolonize The Left

13th June 2013, 04:54

There's an elementary distinction you're failing to draw between "confronting people physically" and "using brute force." It's one thing to intimidate a group with sheer numbers. It's another thing to initiate a physical assault on them. And it's something else entirely to have the view that only the latter, not the former, is effective at and should as a rule be utilized when confronting reactionary elements attempting to demonstrate or organize publicly. TAT (whom I shall not engage anymore in this thread) is trying to collapse the two, and through a pretty lame sleight of hand, trying to pretend that because a person doesn't favor the third option, then he must favor hiding in a basement somewhere and letting fascists do what they want unchallenged. You're falling for it.

Nobody here is arguing that we should never be willing to consider the use of violence, as a rule, when confronting fascists, so the point you make about being willing to consider using it is attacking a pacifist strawman. Another important point that you and TAT are failing to understand is that facists engaging in a piddly little demonstration, swarmed and outnumbered by a mass of protestors might send a louder, and more effective, message to onlooking workers about the il(legitimacy) of fascist views. Then again, it might not. It all depends upon evaluating the state of the workers' movement at the time, and tailoring tactics to suit the context. One cannot make this decision by just beating one's chest about the need for violence, and pretending that it's a concrete materialist analysis of the tasks confronting revolutionaries. That's just mindless moralism.

Forgive me, but I think you missed my entire point. My point was logical and is as follows:
- Fascists gather at a demo.
- People show up in opposition to this demo.
- Demo continues.
In order to force fascists to back down, there needs to be a reason why they feel it is unwise to continue the demo. You, in your own words, most clearly provided this reason:

It turns out that fascists aren't suicidal, and understand (sometimes) an obvious point that you fail to grasp: when you're about to get your ass handed to you a crowd 300 times your size, you just pack your bags and go home to fight another day.
Here you clearly elucidate that it is nothing more than the fear of imminent violence which causes the fascists to back down. So the new scenario is:
- Fascists gather at a demo.
- People show up in opposition to this demo.
- Fascists retreat from demo due to fear of violence and personal injury.
So now the question is, WHY did the fascists retreat due to fear of violence and personal injury? It's not just because - it's because in the past, perhaps at every other demo they attempted to hold, they were met with violence and personal injury. The precedent has been set and the logic follows in simple form.

This is a simple materialist analysis of a situation. I'm not moralizing here. I already stated my position and I hold to it:

diversity of tactics is necessary in any war or battle for victory. Without evidence of a willingness to use brute force, the threat of brute force has no... force. Hence it is not always absolutely necessary to engage in violence but it is absolutely necessary to keep that possibility on the table at all times, and this means employing it when appropriate. Anything less than this is simply poor strategy and limits the effectiveness of any campaign.

TAT's point was that in this context it is always necessary to engage in violence. Once again, while I understand his perspective and his point is valid, I'm not willing to engage in the absolute position put forth. I think it is often necessary but 'always' is a hard term for me to toss around.

You, on the other hand, seemed to have missed this point entirely. It has nothing to do with 'what kind of violence' or distinctions between anything, it has to do with precedent and human behavior. If you want fascists to back down from a demo they need a reason and the only reason that really works is violence. Again, in my opinion this doesn't mean violence is always necessary but it does mean that at some point it must be employed as precedent needs to be set and maintained.

Lucretia

13th June 2013, 12:50

Forgive me, but I think you missed my entire point. My point was logical and is as follows:
- Fascists gather at a demo.
- People show up in opposition to this demo.
- Demo continues.
In order to force fascists to back down, there needs to be a reason why they feel it is unwise to continue the demo. ...

Here you clearly elucidate that it is nothing more than the fear of imminent violence which causes the fascists to back down. So the new scenario is:
- Fascists gather at a demo.
- People show up in opposition to this demo.
- Fascists retreat from demo due to fear of violence and personal injury.
So now the question is, WHY did the fascists retreat due to fear of violence and personal injury? It's not just because - it's because in the past, perhaps at every other demo they attempted to hold, they were met with violence and personal injury. The precedent has been set and the logic follows in simple form.

This is a simple materialist analysis of a situation. I'm not moralizing here. I already stated my position and I hold to it:

TAT's point was that in this context it is always necessary to engage in violence. Once again, while I understand his perspective and his point is valid, I'm not willing to engage in the absolute position put forth. I think it is often necessary but 'always' is a hard term for me to toss around.

You, on the other hand, seemed to have missed this point entirely. It has nothing to do with 'what kind of violence' or distinctions between anything, it has to do with precedent and human behavior. If you want fascists to back down from a demo they need a reason and the only reason that really works is violence. Again, in my opinion this doesn't mean violence is always necessary but it does mean that at some point it must be employed as precedent needs to be set and maintained.

Accusing me of missing your point, you ironically missed my point: because violence is always considered as an option at a particular juncture (though not always chosen and deployed), there is always, from the perspective those reactionaries showing up at a demonstration, the possibility of violence being deployed against them. This talk about "precedents" is just silly. If you know violence isn't in principle off the table, you have no idea if the latest demonstration is going to be THE demonstration where a new precedent is set, where violence is chosen as the preferred tactic. Would you take that risk if you're a band of 15 reactionary dorks confronted by hundreds of angry activists? Again, TAT seems to be that dumb. But speaking from my own experience, most fascists aren't. And that's setting aside the fact that, even without the very specific precedent of leftists choosing violence as a preferred tactic at a particular demonstration, a "precedent for violence", a demonstrated willingness to use violence, still exists when violent self-defense is employed against violence initially instigated by fascists. Which it no doubt would be long before any decision is taken to utilize it as a deliberate method. So your point, perfectly understood by me, really is moot.

The Feral Underclass

13th June 2013, 13:48

Trying to attack me in posts to other people, without addressing directly the things I say to you just makes you look like a petty fool who can't adequately defend his views from criticism.

Decolonize The Left

13th June 2013, 14:58

Accusing me of missing your point, you ironically missed my point: because violence is always considered as an option at a particular juncture (though not always chosen and deployed), there is always, from the perspective those reactionaries showing up at a demonstration, the possibility of violence being deployed against them.

Incorrect. Precedent =/= possibility. Simply put:
- I can go to a fascist demo and it's possible that I'll be confronted with violence.
- I have been confronted with violence every single time I have gone to a fascist demo.

The former is possibility (your argument), the latter is precedent (TAT's argument). You can see how his is much, much, much, stronger.

This talk about "precedents" is just silly. If you know violence isn't in principle off the table, you have no idea if the latest demonstration is going to be THE demonstration where a new precedent is set, where violence is chosen as the preferred tactic. Would you take that risk if you're a band of 15 reactionary dorks confronted by hundreds of angry activists?

Well, reality disproves your argument. Violence isn't in principle off the table and yet fascist demonstrations happen all the time. So your point disproves itself.

Again, TAT seems to be that dumb. But speaking from my own experience, most fascists aren't. And that's setting aside the fact that, even without the very specific precedent of leftists choosing violence as a preferred tactic at a particular demonstration, a "precedent for violence", a demonstrated willingness to use violence, still exists when violent self-defense is employed against violence initially instigated by fascists. Which it no doubt would be long before any decision is taken to utilize it as a deliberate method. So your point, perfectly understood by me, really is moot.

I am sorry that you fail to see the logical simplicity of my argument. Here's another way to look at it, strategically:
When you don't act and wait for the opposition to act, you are giving them the advantage. They have the advantage of choices (attack or not) whereby you only have one option (defend). Hence it is strategically advantageous to always maintain as many options of action as possible - and TAT's point is that by attacking at every juncture, you are maintaining these options and at the same time limiting theirs.

Also, I agree with him that you should probably address his argument to him directly. He can be a bit rude but he's very smart and it would be a good discussion - hopefully.

bcbm

13th June 2013, 18:33

Anti-White

18th June 2013, 03:49

when has a resurgent fascism been defeated without being physically beaten back in the streets?

i can think of one or two good examples of what can happen when people are talked down from violently stopping them

Have you ever committed an act of violence against a man? I mean one-on-one, hand-to-hand? None of this group-pile-on-one-man-and-kick-the-shit-out-of-him but seriously going after someone?

Violence can be very satisfying and when it is you want more and more. But I see too many white Leftists who are bullshitters and type about violence more than they actually commit it.

Lucretia

18th June 2013, 03:58

Incorrect. Precedent =/= possibility. Simply put:
- I can go to a fascist demo and it's possible that I'll be confronted with violence.
- I have been confronted with violence every single time I have gone to a fascist demo.

The former is possibility (your argument), the latter is precedent (TAT's argument). You can see how his is much, much, much, stronger.

Well, reality disproves your argument. Violence isn't in principle off the table and yet fascist demonstrations happen all the time. So your point disproves itself.

I am sorry that you fail to see the logical simplicity of my argument. Here's another way to look at it, strategically:
When you don't act and wait for the opposition to act, you are giving them the advantage. They have the advantage of choices (attack or not) whereby you only have one option (defend). Hence it is strategically advantageous to always maintain as many options of action as possible - and TAT's point is that by attacking at every juncture, you are maintaining these options and at the same time limiting theirs.

Also, I agree with him that you should probably address his argument to him directly. He can be a bit rude but he's very smart and it would be a good discussion - hopefully.

It once again seems you don't understand what I am suggesting at all. I am not arguing that the threat of violence, or the possibility (with or without an established precedent in some fascist's personal history) of violence, will prevent somebody from going to a fascist demonstration. Hell, even fascists who have been attacked continue to engage in demonstrations. So do we conclude from that that violence should be off the table because it doesn't work and fascists will keep coming back even after they're attacked? Of course not.

I have made very clear that fascism, a product of capitalism's decay, can only be defeated decisively and permanently by the overthrow of capitalism. That's the strategy. Then there's the question of tactics: the question of how to engage in fascists in the meantime, to contain them and prevent them from having a presence in the streets as much as possible, which always involves considering violence, but might sometimes mean abstaining from initiating acts of violence. It is contingent upon the balance of forces, the level of the class struggle, etc. You seem to be reducing the question of the defeat of fascism to the question of just whether to use violence or not at a particular demonstration, reducing the question of strategy to the question of tactics. What is worse, you are reifying violence, abstracting it from the class struggle, and in fact removing class struggle from the picture entirely by talking only about "violence" in the abstract against fascists, not who is engaging in the violence or at what cost to the working class.

As for your suggestion that I engage TAT in further discussion? No thanks, comrade. He seems to be developing an unhealthy fixation on me, so I placed him on ignore. I really couldn't care less how smart you or he thinks he is. His politics are shit, and his personal behavior is even worse. Both on and off the forum, from what I have heard from reliable sources.

bcbm

24th June 2013, 05:25

Have you ever committed an act of violence against a man? I mean one-on-one, hand-to-hand?

yes.

No_Leaders

26th June 2013, 18:34

Your valorization of violence, and insistence on using it not as a tactic but as a strategy has far more in common with fascism than you'd like to think. In fact, in light of your trolling behavior, I am beginning to think your previous ban might have been for suspicions that you're a fascist. Would you mind reminding everybody here why you were banned again? I'm sure we'd all love to know.
First off, you making petty personal attacks and calling out another member for previously being banned is pretty damn right low, and honestly childish and an attempt to make a personal attack and stir up drama.

Second, violence is merely a tactic, it's not the only tactic, but if fascists were to gain ground do you truly believe standing around yelling at them through megaphones and holding placards will accomplish much? Especially if they're taking actions like murdering, assassinating other radical leftists?

There's a quote from Hitler:

"Only one thing could have stopped our movement - if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement."

If revolutonary leftists can't unite to smash fascism for fear of seeming to "radical" then why are we revolutionaries or radicals? We'd be typical liberals who work within the system believing good ol' officer grady will protect and serve and that justice will be done and the fascist scum who killed this kid will get what they deserve.

I became an anarchist because i realized what an illusion that whole belief is. I became an anarchist because I believe we need to resist oppression. Does that mean by organizing? Yes, does it mean by working with local affinity groups and branching out to other movements to help get other information out there and not liberal drivel? Yes! Does it mean building alliance networks, showing solidarity with fellow working class? Of course, but It also means diversity of tactics, there's a time when militant direct action will be necessary. There's no denying that fact, and the reality is fascists can be defeated in numerous ways but the only way to really rid of them is to physically kick them off our streets.

When you goto a rally or counter-rally against the scum's marchs your making a show of force that they're not welcome. When some boneheads get the shit beat out of them, it's one part of the conflict between us and them. It's not a war with barricades and gun fights and militias mobilising to fight fascists i.e. Spanish Civil War, but it is a VERY real conflict going on all the time. It's something we as radicals realize, we understand it and accept the risks.

Although it seems you're more content being the person saying "oh just ignore those silly fascists, if you try hard enough they might just dissapear!" Which is a very bourgeois liberal way to tackle fascism. So go on, continue to hold placards and signs and yell at fascists through megaphones as the only means of combatting them, see how well it will work as a tactic.