Discussion on militant antifascist tactics (split from GD attack on KKE thread)

[robbo203]

If KKE organised this Golden Down would not stand a chance. The fascists dont have such a large organised movement as KKE have behind them. The only thing Golden Down is interested in right now is parlamentarian power, they got no social project or union to organise behind. Too draw them into a street war would not benefit them at this moment in time. And it is a street war were socialists always have to be ready to be the most violent. It is better to do it at this moment in time when they do not have built a mass movement yet. It does not even take a lot of force to do this.

I am sure antifascists in Germany in the 30s argued exactly like you do. But in this I trust 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."

Hitler was talking utter claptrap and Im surprised you set much credence by what he had to say. Point is fascist ideas arise out of material circumstances and in ways that are well documented. You dont kill an idea or prevent its spread by cracking open the skull of someone promoting it. If anything the opposite is true. You make martyrs of them and create an irrational volatile atmosphere in which thuggish violence becomes the political norm and the means by which political scores are settled. Political differences fade into the background and the political protagoinists become increasingly to resemble each other differing only - like rival football gangs - in the ritual insignia to which they declare loyalty.

Im sorry but I have an ingrained prejudice against armchair revolutionaries glorying in violence. There is nothing noble or uplifting about it; it is dehumanising , brutalising and authoritarian by its very nature and I couldnt give a toss if that make me sounds like a wishy washy pacifist in the eyes of some people here.

Violence is something to be absolutely minimised . By all means defend youself with force against those who would use violence against but dont elevate violence into a strategy. I repeat once more - those who you would want to crush with violence want nothing more than that you should do thus. They want to provoke and goad you into violent attacks on them and you would be a downright fool if you then went ahead and obliged them

[aty]

Hitler was talking utter claptrap and Im surprised you set much credence by what he had to say. Point is fascist ideas arise out of material circumstances and in ways that are well documented. You dont kill an idea or prevent its spread by cracking open the skull of someone promoting it. If anything the opposite is true. You make martyrs of them and create an irrational volatile atmosphere in which thuggish violence becomes the political norm and the means by which political scores are settled. Political differences fade into the background and the political protagoinists become increasingly to resemble each other differing only - like rival football gangs - in the ritual insignia to which they declare loyalty.

Im sorry but I have an ingrained prejudice against armchair revolutionaries glorying in violence. There is nothing noble or uplifting about it; it is dehumanising , brutalising and authoritarian by its very nature and I couldnt give a toss if that make me sounds like a wishy washy pacifist in the eyes of some people here.

Violence is something to be absolutely minimised . By all means defend youself with force against those who would use violence against but dont elevate violence into a strategy. I repeat once more - those who you would want to crush with violence want nothing more than that you should do thus. They want to provoke and goad you into violent attacks on them and you would be a downright fool if you then went ahead and obliged them
In Sweden we went from having one of the biggest and most violent fascists in all of Europe to them now only being able to gather 300 people at most.
This was done with violence, they were attacked when ever they showed themselves, in their homes, and at their work. We practically made it impossible to organise yourself in fascist groups without having to pay a high price for you being a traitor to the working class. Every city had a crew that monitored the fascists and planned attacks at the same time as organising politically in traditional working class areas.

The fascists never had a real movement to lean back on, it did not matter how much violence they were met with because they had no public support outside their own groups. They only have the struggle to strive after parlamentarian power, all other actions does not organise people, they have no real social project. They have no base to build suppport but with than propaganda and populistic events.

If you allow them to take victories on the streets they will build much stronger and deny any working class organisation to take place. Most times only with the latent threat of violence. If you deny them this space they are nothing.
You should not even met them in this space if you are not 100% certain of a victory that will demoralize them. Instead attack them when they are alone and vulnerable, where they think they are safe. In Sweden these attacks are almost never even reported in the media at all.

Violence won the swedish streets from being in fascist hegemony into now being in socialist hegemony. This is a fact, and it took us about 5 years to smash all their big events with thousands fascists taking part each year, to now none of these events exist any longer.

Violence is not funny, but it is necessary for any serious workers movement.

[robbo203]

In Sweden we went from having one of the biggest and most violent fascists in all of Europe to them now only being able to gather 300 people at most.
This was done with violence, they were attacked when ever they showed themselves, in their homes, and at their work. We practically made it impossible to organise yourself in fascist groups without having to pay a high price for you being a traitor to the working class. Every city had a crew that monitored the fascists and planned attacks at the same time as organising politically in traditional working class areas.

The fascists never had a real movement to lean back on, it did not matter how much violence they were met with because they had no public support outside their own groups. They only have the struggle to strive after parlamentarian power, all other actions does not organise people, they have no real social project. They have no base to build suppport but with than propaganda and populistic events.

If you allow them to take victories on the streets they will build much stronger and deny any working class organisation to take place. Most times only with the latent threat of violence. If you deny them this space they are nothing.
You should not even met them in this space if you are not 100% certain of a victory that will demoralize them. Instead attack them when they are alone and vulnerable, where they think they are safe. In Sweden these attacks are almost never even reported in the media at all.

Violence won the swedish streets from being in fascist hegemony into now being in socialist hegemony. This is a fact, and it took us about 5 years to smash all their big events with thousands fascists taking part each year, to now none of these events exist any longer.

Violence is not funny, but it is necessary for any serious workers movement.


With respect this has not stopped the growth of the extreme right wing nationalism/ fascism in Sweden, has it? . The so called "Sweden Democrats" doubled their share of the vote and won their first seats in the Parliament in 2010. winning 20 seats with 5.7% of the vote and knocking the center-right out of a majority

see here for example

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/09/swed-s30.html

You cant kill an idea by driving its promoters underground. You have to tackle the source of that idea

Ironically , the only countries were the growth of fascist movements has been curbed has tended to be those governed by right wing governments that have simply coopted much of what the fascists had been calling for

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

In Sweden we went from having one of the biggest and most violent fascists in all of Europe to them now only being able to gather 300 people at most.
This was done with violence, they were attacked when ever they showed themselves, in their homes, and at their work. We practically made it impossible to organise yourself in fascist groups without having to pay a high price for you being a traitor to the working class. Every city had a crew that monitored the fascists and planned attacks at the same time as organising politically in traditional working class areas.

OK, I think there's some simplification here. Certainly, having the organizational capacity to crack boneheads' boneheads is crucial, and demonstrating as much is important. At the same time however, it's this capacity that is more decisive than the skullcrackin' itself, since, obviously, it's not as though every neonazi in Sweden was pounded into submission.

I can only speak directly to the Canadian context, but here, Nazis often outgunned (literally, had guns, while ARA mostly didn't) antifa/ARA, but ARA outorganized them. This included shitkickings, but more importantly included breaking up public events, propaganda, reaching out to impacted communities (this later not effectively enough, alas), etc.

Point being, it's a political confrontation, of which military confrontation is only one aspect (and not decisive since, obviously, the state outguns all concerned).


The fascists never had a real movement to lean back on, it did not matter how much violence they were met with because they had no public support outside their own groups. They only have the struggle to strive after parlamentarian power, all other actions does not organise people, they have no real social project. They have no base to build suppport but with than propaganda and populistic events.

Which is significantly different than Greece, where GD have a clear social project, provide services, win 7% of the vote, etc. The context is v. different.


If you allow them to take victories on the streets they will build much stronger and deny any working class organisation to take place. Most times only with the latent threat of violence. If you deny them this space they are nothing.
You should not even met them in this space if you are not 100% certain of a victory that will demoralize them. Instead attack them when they are alone and vulnerable, where they think they are safe. In Sweden these attacks are almost never even reported in the media at all.

OK, I agree and disagree. On one hand, beating Nazi scum in dark alleyways might demoralize them, but, on the other hand, in the case of Greece, we're talking about a fascist movement, not a little sect of bonehead losers. It should definitely change our strategic approach.


Violence won the swedish streets from being in fascist hegemony into now being in socialist hegemony. This is a fact, and it took us about 5 years to smash all their big events with thousands fascists taking part each year, to now none of these events exist any longer.

No offense, but I don't believe you one bit that there is socialist hegemony on the streets in Sweden. In fact, this speaks to the danger of narrow anti-fascism. You seem to think you've "won" when, obviously, like, where's your revolution, eh? "Socialist Hegemony" has got to mean more than successfully running some dumbass white power streetgangs off the scene (not to belittle that accomplishment - good for y'all!!!!): it's got to mean a real revolutionary movement in the streets.


Violence is not funny, but it is necessary for any serious workers movement.

I concur, but, at the same time, it's obviously not the only thing necessary, in strategic terms, for a serious workers' movement.

[aty]

With respect this has not stopped the growth of the extreme right wing nationalism/ fascism in Sweden, has it? . The so called "Sweden Democrats" doubled their share of the vote and won their first seats in the Parliament in 2010. winning 20 seats with 5.7% of the vote and knocking the center-right out of a majority

see here for example

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/09/swed-s30.html

You cant kill an idea by driving its promoters underground. You have to tackle the source of that idea

Ironically , the only countries were the growth of fascist movements has been curbed has tended to be those governed by right wing governments that have simply coopted much of what the fascists had been calling for
The Sweden Democrats are no longer fascists even if they have members who could be described as such. They are just a right wing deeply conservative anti-immigration party in the style of so many others in Europe. They pose no physical threat on the streets. I could not care less if they take all the voters from the other right wing parties, and this is precisely what they do. They have no real movement behind them, it is just votes that can easily disappear as happened with a similar party in the 90s who got 6,7% and next election they were gone. The Swedendemocrats are isolated, the whole left hates them, the more liberal voters of the right wing hate them, they could attract a maximum of 15% of the votes and still not be able to affect any policy because it would be politically impossible to touch them.

What we have been interested in from the start is to build hegemony on the streets, to stop any serious real fascist movement from organising and this we have succeded in without any major backslash. If we had such a party as Swedendemocrats in the parliament at the same time we had a violent fascist movement with hegemony on the streets we would have a totally different situation in Sweden today, that I am sure of.

We are not battling ideas directly, we are creating room for class organisation to take place, at the same time we deny any fascist organisation to take place. If we keep that place open for the class to organise themselves without the threat of fascist reprisals we will have a much smother and easy struggle for workers power. We battle them by organising our class and create class consciousness and confidence.

[aty]

OK, I think there's some simplification here. Certainly, having the organizational capacity to crack boneheads' boneheads is crucial, and demonstrating as much is important. At the same time however, it's this capacity that is more decisive than the skullcrackin' itself, since, obviously, it's not as though every neonazi in Sweden was pounded into submission.

I can only speak directly to the Canadian context, but here, Nazis often outgunned (literally, had guns, while ARA mostly didn't) antifa/ARA, but ARA outorganized them. This included shitkickings, but more importantly included breaking up public events, propaganda, reaching out to impacted communities (this later not effectively enough, alas), etc.

Point being, it's a political confrontation, of which military confrontation is only one aspect (and not decisive since, obviously, the state outguns all concerned).
Of course, you have to fight them at many different levels, the miilitary level is just one of many. It is the belief that there is no real need for violence in the fight against fascism that I am against.
I can just give you one example, the city of Gothenburg. Swedens second largest city. It had in the early 2000s one of the most violent fascist groups that could draw hundreds out on the streets. It was these fascists that the police let forward to attack demonstrators during the EU-riots in Gothenburg 2001 when three comrades were shot by the police during those riots that the fascist attacks had initiated.

After these riots that put over 100 comrades in long jail sentences the group called "Revolutionary Front" was founded in Gothenburg. The group was built in the style of the british Red Action. They were going to make no compromises with the nazis at all. It took them 7 years to eradicate every fascist group in Gothenburg with the force of violence. In one single attack in 2008 they took out the last group of organised fascists who never recovered from that defeat. The fascists were attacked at 5 in the morning on the swedish national day as they were boarding buses to Stockholm and a traditional fascist march that attracted at most 1800 fascists and after 2008 dont exist any longer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXpURmRMgRU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXpURmRMgRU)


Which is significantly different than Greece, where GD have a clear social project, provide services, win 7% of the vote, etc. The context is v. different.They have no real social project, handouts to poor greeks? That is a charity movement and not a social one. The swedish fascists actually had a big music movement organising concerts and selling CDs in the 90s, but this faded as they were increasingly met violently on the streets. And the fact that they started fighting over the money...



OK, I agree and disagree. On one hand, beating Nazi scum in dark alleyways might demoralize them, but, on the other hand, in the case of Greece, we're talking about a fascist movement, not a little sect of bonehead losers. It should definitely change our strategic approach.They are still a little sect of bonehead losers. They had 0,1% in the last election, no way they have a movement that equals there 7% in parliament. They should be met hard before they have such a movement that equals there voting figures. Just look at NSDAPs movement when they got 18% in 1930...that was a movement matching there voting figures.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCIhSMBMyFw



No offense, but I don't believe you one bit that there is socialist hegemony on the streets in Sweden. In fact, this speaks to the danger of narrow anti-fascism. You seem to think you've "won" when, obviously, like, where's your revolution, eh? "Socialist Hegemony" has got to mean more than successfully running some dumbass white power streetgangs off the scene (not to belittle that accomplishment - good for y'all!!!!): it's got to mean a real revolutionary movement in the streets.Of course it has to mean a real revolutionary movement in the streets. We cant win as long as capitalism survives because fascism is a product of capitalism. But it helps a lot if this movement dont have to worry about a fascist threat when it gets going. It is all about creating as much space as possible for that movement to start flourishing.
And there is a lot of new organisations and struggles popping up in Sweden at this very moment. Such organisation and struggles that would have been attacked by fascists only 10 years ago.

[robbo203]

The Sweden Democrats are no longer fascists even if they have members who could be described as such. They are just a right wing deeply conservative anti-immigration party in the style of so many others in Europe. They pose no physical threat on the streets. I could not care less if they take all the voters from the other right wing parties, and this is precisely what they do. They have no real movement behind them, it is just votes that can easily disappear as happened with a similar party in the 90s who got 6,7% and next election they were gone. The Swedendemocrats are isolated, the whole left hates them, the more liberal voters of the right wing hate them, they could attract a maximum of 15% of the votes and still not be able to affect any policy because it would be politically impossible to touch them.

What we have been interested in from the start is to build hegemony on the streets, to stop any serious real fascist movement from organising and this we have succeded in without any major backslash. If we had such a party as Swedendemocrats in the parliament at the same time we had a violent fascist movement with hegemony on the streets we would have a totally different situation in Sweden today, that I am sure of.

We are not battling ideas directly, we are creating room for class organisation to take place, at the same time we deny any fascist organisation to take place. If we keep that place open for the class to organise themselves without the threat of fascist reprisals we will have a much smother and easy struggle for workers power. We battle them by organising our class and create class consciousness and confidence.

Im sorry but I dont find this particularly convincing at all. I think your whole approach is a little naive , even complacent.

Lets look at this argument. You admit that you are "not battling ideas directly" but are "creating room for class organisation to take place" by removing the presence of fascist organisation that presumably, in your view, prevent the class from organising. As an aside , I'd even question that. Hypothetically the very existence of fascist organisations menacing workers because of the ideas they hold or becuase of the colour of their skin might if anything serve as a stimulus to "class organisation". That is to say it would give then an added or stronger reason to come together in mutual defence against such fascist attacks (and Im perfectly OK with the idea of workers defending themselves with force against such attacks; I just dont see any merit in pro-actively initiating attacks against the fascists which, as Ive said all along, is playing right into their hands in my view. They want nothing more than a good scrap to raise their political profile and their sense of their own importance).

To put it differently - would "class organisation" be facilitated by the absence of fascist organisations? I dont think that necessarily follows at all although you seem to think it follows axiomatically. I would also point out that the great bulk of fascists are members of the working class - our class. While you are busily cracking open fascist skulls, its worth pondering on the implications of that. We are not going to get any closer to changing society without working class unity. That means workers who were once conservatives, liberals , labourites and yes - even fascists - have to change their way of looking at the world in order to unite for this purpose. You cant have a socialist world without a socialist majority. How specifically do you propose to change a fascist or even a conservative /liberal/ labour worker into a socialist worker?

While you are focusing on the organisational manifestations of fascism I am much more concerned with the extent of fascist ideology. You see, this is what I find so unconvincing about what you say.

Try to put yourself in the shoes of a fascist. Youve cornered a group of them in a street alley somewhere and you and your comrades proceed to give them a good kicking . Bloodied and traumatised by the event how do you think they are going to respond? I ask this in all seriousness. My hunch is that it is most likely going to intensify their hatred of everything you stand for and confirm them in their fascism. It is going to reinforce their own worldview in a way that probably nothing else could do quite so effectively. The poltical becomes personal in this instance. Very personal.

I dont want to sound condescending but a young fascist who probably knows very little about the ideology and politics of fascism who maybe just joined a fascist gang for the escapist thrill and the camaraderie of it all is not going to say to himself or herself: "Yeah fair do's - I was out of order joining a fascist gang. Youve taught me a valuable lesson in life even if you broke my nose in the process. Ill stop being a fascist now". I mean if you believe that then you've gotta be exceeding naive indeed

I grant that it may well be possible under certain circumstances to drive fascists organisations off the street and maybe in Sweden such circumstances applied where they dont elsewhere. However all you have succeeded in doing is to drive the fascists underground where they can fester and multiply in ways that are way beyond your ability to control (one has only to think of what the internet makes possible in that regard), Never mind formal fascist organisation; informal networks of fascists operating on a face to face microscale to my way of think pose a more sinister threat. Peer influence is a powerful persuader.

And here's another point. OK in Sweden yourve driven the fascists off the streets in the last 5 years or so you say. But what about the larger picture? Has there been a corresponding shift in political opinion. Has the political environment become one in which "class organisation" has been able to more freely flex its muscles? Has the struggle for workers power been made smoother and easier as you put it? Well it certainly doesnt seem like that. Not according to this article at any rate

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/world/europe/21iht-sweden.html?_r=0


If Im not mistaken there has been a shift in political opinion to the right . Ive mentioned the extreme nationalist and xenophoic "Sweden Democrats" who doubled their share of the vote in 2010 to 5.7%, winning 20 seats and knocking the center-right out of a majority. This is bang in the middle of the time you said you were driving the fascists off the street. . You say you are not unduly concerned becuase "the Sweden Democrats are no longer fascists even if they have members who could be described as such" though you dont deny that there is a considerable overlap in the ideas held by SD and fascists . Many of those fascists you drove off the steets will no doubt have registered their support for the SD as an outlet for their political beliefs

What has tended to happen in many countries in Europe where fascist groups have been prevented from making significant inroads politically is that the ruling party - typically, but not exclusively, of the Centre Right - has coopted many of the policies that the fascists or extreme nationalists have been pushing for. The road to "workers power" has been made, not smoother, but more difficult as a result


Ill wind up here. At the end of the day if you are ever to make progress towards workers power you have to engage ideas directly. Please dont talk to me about "idealism." Im not making this point against you personally but Ive had my fill of those who mindlessly and moronically snigger at what they call the "idealism" of trying to change opinion while they themselves busy themselves with trying to persuade others round to this crude mechanical IDEA of theirs about how societiy ticks which they presume to call "materialist" . As if ideas and material conditions are two completely separate things. People who talk in this way have little idea of what historical materialism is about. They are mechanical materialists

To stop fascism youve got to wean people off fascist ideas, no?. You cant bludgeon them out of becoming fascists. Thats for sure . So how how you going to prevent them from becoming fascist? And how are you going to prevent a resurgence of fascist groups once again on the streets of Stockholm or Malmo?

[aty]

Im sorry but I dont find this particularly convincing at all. I think your whole approach is a little naive , even complacent.

Lets look at this argument. You admit that you are "not battling ideas directly" but are "creating room for class organisation to take place" by removing the presence of fascist organisation that presumably, in your view, prevent the class from organising. As an aside , I'd even question that. Hypothetically the very existence of fascist organisations menacing workers because of the ideas they hold or becuase of the colour of their skin might if anything serve as a stimulus to "class organisation". That is to say it would give then an added or stronger reason to come together in mutual defence against such fascist attacks (and Im perfectly OK with the idea of workers defending themselves with force against such attacks; I just dont see any merit in pro-actively initiating attacks against the fascists which, as Ive said all along, is playing right into their hands in my view. They want nothing more than a good scrap to raise their political profile and their sense of their own importance).
But we have done exactly this in Sweden, we took the fight to the fascists. It has not played into their hands, it has broken their spirit and reduced the number of organised fascists significantly. Especially the fascist threat on the streets and have allowed people not to be afraid to organise themselves in socialist groups as was the case in the 90s. People dont have to be afraid going out on town handing out leaflets or being openly a socialist any longer. That was not the case in the 90s, it was the opposite in fact. The fascists was openly taking space, not even hiding their opinions, they went out with them in public with pride and attacked anyone that was against them. We have reversed that fascist hegemony into a socialist one.



To put it differently - would "class organisation" be facilitated by the absence of fascist organisations? I dont think that necessarily follows at all although you seem to think it follows axiomatically. I would also point out that the great bulk of fascists are members of the working class - our class. While you are busily cracking open fascist skulls, its worth pondering on the implications of that. We are not going to get any closer to changing society without working class unity. That means workers who were once conservatives, liberals , labourites and yes - even fascists - have to change their way of looking at the world in order to unite for this purpose. You cant have a socialist world without a socialist majority. How specifically do you propose to change a fascist or even a conservative /liberal/ labour worker into a socialist worker?Yes, class organisation is facilitated by the absence of fascist organisation. The fascists main goal is to split the working class into different groups based on race, nation, religion, culture, sexuality etc and make the working class basically fight against each other. When the working class is busy fighting against each other about bullshit the captialists can move in and do whatever they want to without any opposition.
Fascism itself is a scab-ideology, its purpose is only to split the working class. By combating these scabs we are also fighting for working class unity.



While you are focusing on the organisational manifestations of fascism I am much more concerned with the extent of fascist ideology. You see, this is what I find so unconvincing about what you say.I think this is where our main difference is. Our view on the class struggle, you see the class struggle as some sort of battle of ideas while I see the class struggle mainly as a battle of material interest.
If and when a full confrontation between a workers collective and the capitalists do occur the fascist/bigot will have to choose sides. If he is part of this worker collective and have common interests with the rest of the workers he will probably choose the workers side, his own side.
If we do have a strong fascist organisation the facist/bigot will probably choose the side which his fascist organisation choose and not struggle with his own workers collective.

The most effective way of battling fascist ideology is to make the working class realise that they have a common material interest, this happens in class confrontations. We have a much better chance of achieving a united workers collective without a strong fascist organisation that can dictate what its members are supposed to do in such a conflict. These fascist workers will not have any solidarity or support coming at them from any organisation but they will understand that they can only find that with their own workers collective.



And here's another point. OK in Sweden yourve driven the fascists off the streets in the last 5 years or so you say. But what about the larger picture? Has there been a corresponding shift in political opinion. Has the political environment become one in which "class organisation" has been able to more freely flex its muscles? Has the struggle for workers power been made smoother and easier as you put it? Well it certainly doesnt seem like that. Not according to this article at any rate

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/world/europe/21iht-sweden.html?_r=0Yes it has, we have only had about 3-4 years without any serious fascist threat but it has made it much more easy to be open with your political views if you are a socialist. We have been able to put out our view of the society and started to refocuse the debate into economical material questions instead of moral ones.

At the same time as we started to have defeated the nazis on the streets we have also by and large scaled down on antifascism significantly from being at its highest point in 2008.
Instead we have started to first and foremost talk about class again, it was only the most militant socialists that talked about class in a marxist definition at first. This debate has slowly eaten its way into the center of the political debate from most of the political debaters even denying that Sweden was a class society. We even had an upperclass person on the biggest news show last week who accused the working class of classhate against the upperclass because the "swedish Eton" school was closed down. We have organised "Classhate safaris" into rich neighbourhoods to expose class differences etc.
We have effectively turned not only the political debate but also the debate of the left wing. In 2012 the swedish dictionary officially added the word "Upperclass-safari".

We have constantly worked against the neoliberals and their privatisations of the swedish welfare system. This has created many different movements in the whole of Sweden that have led to a more and more effective resistance movement against this. This has actually also turned into maybe the most important political question among the population today, that we allow private companies in our welfare system making profits on our tax money. And we have a large majority of the population being against this and a lot of protests.
We have also initiated a campaign against staff-hiring companies and against insecure employment contracts that resonates with a large section of the population that are under these insecure employment.

People never talked about this before. The debate was about procent levels in the social security system, jobs, or immigration. We have changed the topic of debate and the main parties are even afraid of touching these subjects. This will increase the votes of the Swedendemocrats, because the main parties refuse at the moment to debate the questions that we have put into the debate and is now there as an elephant in the room when ever the main political parties have a debate. Before 2010 the elephant in the room was always the immigration question.

We have also built much more resistance in the suburbs in Sweden, here you can see a documentary by one of many such organisations:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG2LVIfBoIA

During the recent riots in Stockholms suburbs there was now for the first time an organisation that actually was from these suburbs that could take the center of debate, the group called Megafonen. Instead of only having racists and fascists blaming immigrants we actually had socialists from these suburbs putting forward a socialist analyse of these riots into the mainstream.

Much of this organisation has happened because we dont have to worry about immigrants being killed, socialists or trade unionists being killed by fascists, or our meetings getting attacked by fascists. The main problem with this is that I also dont believe you understand at what level the fascist threat in Sweden was at. They had a full on terror campaign against both the state and the workers movement in 1999.


Ill wind up here. At the end of the day if you are ever to make progress towards workers power you have to engage ideas directly. Please dont talk to me about "idealism." Im not making this point against you personally but Ive had my fill of those who mindlessly and moronically snigger at what they call the "idealism" of trying to change opinion while they themselves busy themselves with trying to persuade others round to this crude mechanical IDEA of theirs about how societiy ticks which they presume to call "materialist" . As if ideas and material conditions are two completely separate things. People who talk in this way have little idea of what historical materialism is about. They are mechanical materialists

To stop fascism youve got to wean people off fascist ideas, no?. You cant bludgeon them out of becoming fascists. Thats for sure . So how how you going to prevent them from becoming fascist? And how are you going to prevent a resurgence of fascist groups once again on the streets of Stockholm or Malmo?But it is not only about ideas, that is pure idealism. It is about creating a room where these ideas can happen, they cant happen as long as you have a real fascist threat always in the back of your mind. They will force their way, they will force their topic of debate as long as you dont have them on the run. The only really dangerous fascist is one that is organised, without organisation and a hegemony on the streets a fascist movement can never be so strong that they can force their way. People wont be afraid to make resistance and speak up against a fascist organisation that pose no real threat.

Malmö has never had a fascist group, it would be impossible, to strong workers movement.

[Sasha]

Article says police are investigating it. Yeah, right. :rolleyes:


http://www.enetenglish.gr/?i=news.en.article&id=1470

Indeed, found this that maybe of interest to the discussion above;

Greek Police and the Golden Dawn: A Complicated Relationship

The attacks against members of the Communist Party of Greece at Perama and the nazi style bullying that took place at Meligalas and Giannitsa reintroduce the issue of the unhindered activity of the Golden Dawn witnessed democratic citizens. Trade Union representatives and police officers deny their responsibility and put the blame on (non-existent) commands by the autorities. Those in charge of the police, talk about individual incidents and confront the base of the police force. Independent observers, remind us of the increased vote GD received from low-level police officers and point out the lack of proper education.

In older incidents of violence and racism, police and fascists coexisted and even cooperated. Those guilty of the attacks, were never tracked and punished and this is the case in all recent events according to a militant representative and syndicalist of the police force.

The same police officer, goes one explaining that the greek police is always informed about the neonazist events and gatherings about to take place but rarely takes action to cover them or prevent violent bursts. Greek police, appears hesitant to deal with such situations, even though in other cases, the leadership has chosen for obvious political reasons to organize several operations at universities etc.

Another office bearer, notes that even though the leadership might wish to deal with the increased attacks, there is a difficulty in managing forces consisting from officers with attitude and politics beliefs similar to those of the Golden Dawn. As a solution, he stresses the importance of a human rights and democratic institutions campaign, aimed to low-level police officers.

In any case, we cannot be sure about the motivation and the guidelines high-level officers and their political leadership follow or whether police chiefs use or at least tolerate Golden Dawn for higher political reasons.

greek source: tvxs

Also this, an far from complete list of cop and fascist activity in the last months:

http://dawnofthegreeks.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/list-with-the-most-significant-fascist-attacks-across-greece-the-last-months/

Smash them, smash them to a pulp.

[robbo203]

But we have done exactly this in Sweden, we took the fight to the fascists. It has not played into their hands, it has broken their spirit and reduced the number of organised fascists significantly. Especially the fascist threat on the streets and have allowed people not to be afraid to organise themselves in socialist groups as was the case in the 90s. People dont have to be afraid going out on town handing out leaflets or being openly a socialist any longer. That was not the case in the 90s, it was the opposite in fact. The fascists was openly taking space, not even hiding their opinions, they went out with them in public with pride and attacked anyone that was against them. We have reversed that fascist hegemony into a socialist one.


Well I question this last assertion for a start. Socialist hegemony? Where is there a "socialist" hegemony anywhere? (You seems to have a social democratic , state welfarist view of "socialism", anyway, which I dont share but thats for another thread) I also think it is a ...er... colourfiul way of describing things to talk of there having been a fascist hegemony prior to you having "taken the fight to the fascists". Do you know what is meant by the term "hegemony?"

Understand where I m coming from. I have no objection to physically defending yourself when you are physically attacked. But taking the fight to the fascists is another matter. I think the way you phrase things has the smell of mythologising about it: "we broke their spirit". Yeah but did you break their outlook, their ideas and their ability to informally spread those ideas which I regard as much more important and sinister than their ability organise openly. Racist and fascist ideas have an insidious capacity to spread rapidly through peer influence and face to face settings particularly under conditions of economic downturn and working class impoverishment

I dont deny that it is possible to under certain circumstances to drive the fascists off the streets in an organisational sense. But Im more concerned with what happens afterwards when you have driven them underground, You seem to be more concerned with the token victories of pitched street battles which could well turn out to be just pyrric victories



Yes, class organisation is facilitated by the absence of fascist organisation. The fascists main goal is to split the working class into different groups based on race, nation, religion, culture, sexuality etc and make the working class basically fight against each other. When the working class is busy fighting against each other about bullshit the captialists can move in and do whatever they want to without any opposition.
Fascism itself is a scab-ideology, its purpose is only to split the working class. By combating these scabs we are also fighting for working class unity.



Yes I realise perfectly well that fascists seek to split the working class etc. But driving them off the streets and underground where they continue to do their dirty work does not prevent them continuing to strive to split the working class. Overwhelmingly fascists themselves are members of the working class. Working class unity needs them - not to mention those workers who hold more mainstream views - to become socialists. What are you doing about that? How are you convincing a fascist not to be a fascist by opening up his skull in a steeet brawl? I would have thought the very opposite is true. You entrench them in their fascist beliefs , you solidify their hatred towards you and all that you stand for



I think this is where our main difference is. Our view on the class struggle, you see the class struggle as some sort of battle of ideas while I see the class struggle mainly as a battle of material interest. .


Groan. Its seems I correctly anticipated that this bogus argument would be brought up. I repeat again - you cannot separate "ideas" and "material condiitions". What you are engaging in is crude reductionism - mechanical materialism. "Material interests" is itself an" idea" or presupposes an "idea". What are you and me doing now? We are exchanging "ideas". Of course the class struggle is a "battle of ideas" - not separate from material conditions but inextricably part of those condisitions. How could it not be? The fascists, by wanting to split the working class along the lines you suggest are ipso facto wanting to impose the idea that some groups of workers have interests that are opposed to other groups, To combat that you have to put across the "idea" that workers have a common interest. Every single struggle in society without exception is mediated through ideas, through consciousness... This constant invoking of "idealism" by some leftists is jiust so, well, mindlessly crass. Its kneejerkism as a substitute for rational argument and it is based on a non-understanding of what is meant by " idealism"




If and when a full confrontation between a workers collective and the capitalists do occur the fascist/bigot will have to choose sides. If he is part of this worker collective and have common interests with the rest of the workers he will probably choose the workers side, his own side.
If we do have a strong fascist organisation the facist/bigot will probably choose the side which his fascist organisation choose and not struggle with his own workers collective.

What you are basically saying here is that fascist ideas are likely to wither to the extent that socialist ideas gain ground. I would agree. Antifascism is not necessarily pro-socialism - anymore than "anti-capitalism - and the festishisation of anti fascist struggle seems to me to be something of a diversion from the struggle for socialism.





The most effective way of battling fascist ideology is to make the working class realise that they have a common material interest, this happens in class confrontations. We have a much better chance of achieving a united workers collective without a strong fascist organisation that can dictate what its members are supposed to do in such a conflict. These fascist workers will not have any solidarity or support coming at them from any organisation but they will understand that they can only find that with their own workers collective.

Well this is ironic. First you say I see class struggle as nothing more than a battle of ideas; now you are talking of the working class needing to "realise" = that is , come to the idea - that they have a common interests. So ideas do count vitally afterall, no? Perhaps what this is saying is that instead of focussing on ferreting out fascists to give them a good kicking in some street alley you should pointing out that they as workers have a common interest with you, That is the way to undermine fascist ideology - not by engaging in or focussing on violent confrontations between one section of the working class (you) and another (the fascists). How is that conducive to working class unity?




Yes it has, we have only had about 3-4 years without any serious fascist threat but it has made it much more easy to be open with your political views if you are a socialist. We have been able to put out our view of the society and started to refocuse the debate into economical material questions instead of moral ones.



So you are engaging in the "battle of ideas" just as much me afterall! Implicit in what you are saying here is an admission that your focussing on antifascists struggle has been a diversion from the struggle to put across socialist ideas. Quite so. You consider antifascist struggle as necessary to create space to enable you to put acorss your socialist views. What seems to be missing from this account is a realisation that fascist ideas do not disappear becuase organised fascists have largely disappeared from the street. In point of fact you have not been winning the battle of ideas but, on the contrary, losing them given the rightward drift of Swedish politics . Thats has in part been fuelled by the involvement of fascists in organisations like Sweden Demcracts who have made electoral gains




At the same time as we started to have defeated the nazis on the streets we have also by and large scaled down on antifascism significantly from being at its highest point in 2008.
Instead we have started to first and foremost talk about class again, it was only the most militant socialists that talked about class in a marxist definition at first. This debate has slowly eaten its way into the center of the political debate from most of the political debaters even denying that Sweden was a class society. "



Right and this is what you should have been doing all along ! You have been putting the cart before the horse instead. Driving fascists underground and off the streets does not in itself promote a sense of class unity. The "us" and "them" diochotomy is an an opposition bertween "fascists" and "anti fascists" - not our class versus the capitalist class. Our class includes 99% of the fascists and this is the point that you should have been ramming hime all along.


At the end of the day you are going to have bring those fascists into the ranks of the socialist movement. You are gonna have to change them from fascists into ex-fascists. The debate here is really how you go about doing that. I am not at all convinced that the way you propose going about doing that is correct. I think it makes matters worse not better and the proof of the pudding is in the eating. You are losing the battle of ideas - not in theoretical sense but in terms of numbers - with the rightward drift of Swedish politics fuelled in part by the poliltcal re-engagement of those fascists whose skulls you have so recently cracked open. The Sweden Democrats may or may not get anywhere in the end but the political environment as a whole has turned against you, has it not?




But it is not only about ideas, that is pure idealism. It is about creating a room where these ideas can happen, they cant happen as long as you have a real fascist threat always in the back of your mind. They will force their way, they will force their topic of debate as long as you dont have them on the run. The only really dangerous fascist is one that is organised, without organisation and a hegemony on the streets a fascist movement can never be so strong that they can force their way. People wont be afraid to make resistance and speak up against a fascist organisation that pose no real threat.


We come back to this basic philosophical difference, dont we? . No one is saying it is "only about ideas". It is you - not me - who is making a false dichotomy between ideas and material conditions where none exists. You talk of creating "a room where these ideas can happen" - as if creating such a "room" does not itself involve promoting iideas. Ironically you are the one who is being the idealist here by detaching ideas from material conditions in this artificial way


You say: "they will force their way, they will force their topic of debate as long as you dont have them on the run". What "debate" might I ask? Did you ever debate them? I thought the standard argument of antifascists was that you cannot reason with a fascist because they are unreasonable - irrational. If so how are they to become socialists?

And I disagree with you when you say "The only really dangerous fascist is one that is organised" . Organised fascismn has its roots in the informal fascism that lurks beneath the surface. Lop iff its head without uprooting its roots and it will sprout up again and if necessary in some other form, reinvigorated and even stronger than bfeore. I say this as one whose profession is a gardener


This I am very sorry to say is what the anti-fascist movement is doing - lopping off the head of fascism without getting anywhere near to uprooting its roots....

[aty]

Well I question this last assertion for a start. Socialist hegemony? Where is there a "socialist" hegemony anywhere? (You seems to have a social democratic , state welfarist view of "socialism", anyway, which I dont share but thats for another thread) I also think it is a ...er... colourfiul way of describing things to talk of there having been a fascist hegemony prior to you having "taken the fight to the fascists". Do you know what is meant by the term "hegemony?"
No I dont. I am talking about socialist hegemony in the streets. In the 90s it was the nazis who never had to worry about any opposition against them, never having to worry about expressing their fascist opinions in public. It was the socialists that had to worry, to check over their shoulder, to worry that when they came home a nazi would stand there with a gun.

I dont think you understand how real this threat was in Sweden, the fascists murdered over 20 people. They robbed army depots for guns and bombs, they robbed dozens of banks, they executed two police, they used car bombs against police and leftist journalists.

In the schools they had hegemony, in almost every school there was a fascist gang that terrorised everyone else. Every night the fascist gangs went into suburbs and searched for immigrants.

I think you need to look at this documentary from this time in Sweden. I much rather have a lot of closet fascists instead of an active fascist movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZWsZyShR_s


Understand where I m coming from. I have no objection to physically defending yourself when you are physically attacked. But taking the fight to the fascists is another matter. I think the way you phrase things has the smell of mythologising about it: "we broke their spirit". Yeah but did you break their outlook, their ideas and their ability to informally spread those ideas which I regard as much more important and sinister than their ability organise openly. Racist and fascist ideas have an insidious capacity to spread rapidly through peer influence and face to face settings particularly under conditions of economic downturn and working class impoverishment

I dont deny that it is possible to under certain circumstances to drive the fascists off the streets in an organisational sense. But Im more concerned with what happens afterwards when you have driven them underground, You seem to be more concerned with the token victories of pitched street battles which could well turn out to be just pyrric victories
But you can never break fascist ideas as long as capitalism exists. We are truly aware that antifascism is "fire brigade politics". We can never eradicate fascists ideas in a capitalist society, but we do however can smash their structures and stop them from organising.

Sweden in the 90s when there was no real militant opposition against them, that was the nightmare, that was Greece right now. That was fascism in practice.



Yes I realise perfectly well that fascists seek to split the working class etc. But driving them off the streets and underground where they continue to do their dirty work does not prevent them continuing to strive to split the working class. Overwhelmingly fascists themselves are members of the working class. Working class unity needs them - not to mention those workers who hold more mainstream views - to become socialists. What are you doing about that? How are you convincing a fascist not to be a fascist by opening up his skull in a steeet brawl? I would have thought the very opposite is true. You entrench them in their fascist beliefs , you solidify their hatred towards you and all that you stand for
We dont need organised fascists for working class unity any more than we need organised scabs. A worker with fascists views that is not organised is much more easily drawn into class conflicts, because he will only have his workers collective to rely on.

It is not about "making them socialists", it is about creating a room for class organisation to take place, and for class conflicts to take place. If you have a large organised fascist movement the conflict will instead take place between the workers and not class against class.



Groan. Its seems I correctly anticipated that this bogus argument would be brought up. I repeat again - you cannot separate "ideas" and "material condiitions". What you are engaging in is crude reductionism - mechanical materialism. "Material interests" is itself an" idea" or presupposes an "idea". What are you and me doing now? We are exchanging "ideas". Of course the class struggle is a "battle of ideas" - not separate from material conditions but inextricably part of those condisitions. How could it not be? The fascists, by wanting to split the working class along the lines you suggest are ipso facto wanting to impose the idea that some groups of workers have interests that are opposed to other groups, To combat that you have to put across the "idea" that workers have a common interest. Every single struggle in society without exception is mediated through ideas, through consciousness... This constant invoking of "idealism" by some leftists is jiust so, well, mindlessly crass. Its kneejerkism as a substitute for rational argument and it is based on a non-understanding of what is meant by " idealism"
This is also were our idea of class struggle goes separate ways. You think that for class struggle to happen every worker have to be an enlightened socialist. While I argue that is not the case, the working class already have a material interest in securing more power for themselves, it is the nature of the class conflict. It cant be removed by ideas because it is precisely a material conflict built into the very fabric of the capitalist society. It is built into the capitalist system that workers in certain conflicts do have a common interest. No matter what ideas is put forward the working class will always come to realise this, most will not even know what the term class consciousness means but they will still put it into practice.
Our job is to create room for this to happen and expand, to create movement inside the working class.





What you are basically saying here is that fascist ideas are likely to wither to the extent that socialist ideas gain ground. I would agree. Antifascism is not necessarily pro-socialism - anymore than "anti-capitalism - and the festishisation of anti fascist struggle seems to me to be something of a diversion from the struggle for socialism.
No, fascist ideas wont wither, they will probably be stronger than ever during intense class warfare because it becomes in the capitalists interest to use violence to protect their privileges.
It helps a lot if the capitalists dont have any fascist organisation to suppport, to put money into when the class struggle becomes that strong that the liberal/conservative turns into the fascist.



Well this is ironic. First you say I see class struggle as nothing more than a battle of ideas; now you are talking of the working class needing to "realise" = that is , come to the idea - that they have a common interests. So ideas do count vitally afterall, no? Perhaps what this is saying is that instead of focussing on ferreting out fascists to give them a good kicking in some street alley you should pointing out that they as workers have a common interest with you, That is the way to undermine fascist ideology - not by engaging in or focussing on violent confrontations between one section of the working class (you) and another (the fascists). How is that conducive to working class unity?
This is not ironic if you actually read what I said, I said that the working class will realise this in material conflicts, in class conflicts. And these class conflicts had a much better chance of expanding if not some workers(fascists) had organised with the capitalists to stop any such conflicts.


So you are engaging in the "battle of ideas" just as much me afterall! Implicit in what you are saying here is an admission that your focussing on antifascists struggle has been a diversion from the struggle to put across socialist ideas. Quite so. You consider antifascist struggle as necessary to create space to enable you to put acorss your socialist views. What seems to be missing from this account is a realisation that fascist ideas do not disappear becuase organised fascists have largely disappeared from the street. In point of fact you have not been winning the battle of ideas but, on the contrary, losing them given the rightward drift of Swedish politics . Thats has in part been fuelled by the involvement of fascists in organisations like Sweden Demcracts who have made electoral gains
But you cant stop their ideas as long as we have a capitalist society, you can stop them to organise. Their ideas will grow when the class struggle becomes more intense, no doubt because they will get more support from those seeking to protect their own interests. This will always happen. What we can do is to stop them from being organised.
What we are focusing on is to create room for class struggle to take place, it helps if we have an organised working class and that is exactly what we are trying to do. It helps a lot not having to be afraid of fascists murdering you when you now join these organisation or express socialist opinions.

In the last 3-4 years the public in Sweden have made a huge leftward shift. Most are against private interests in our welfare, most want to have higher taxes, most are against staff hiring companies, most are against insecure employment contracts, most are against the rising social inequality etc. Not having to focus on the threat from the fascist groups have helped considerably in building working class resistance.




Right and this is what you should have been doing all along ! You have been putting the cart before the horse instead. Driving fascists underground and off the streets does not in itself promote a sense of class unity. The "us" and "them" diochotomy is an an opposition bertween "fascists" and "anti fascists" - not our class versus the capitalist class. Our class includes 99% of the fascists and this is the point that you should have been ramming hime all along.

At the end of the day you are going to have bring those fascists into the ranks of the socialist movement. You are gonna have to change them from fascists into ex-fascists. The debate here is really how you go about doing that. I am not at all convinced that the way you propose going about doing that is correct. I think it makes matters worse not better and the proof of the pudding is in the eating. You are losing the battle of ideas - not in theoretical sense but in terms of numbers - with the rightward drift of Swedish politics fuelled in part by the poliltcal re-engagement of those fascists whose skulls you have so recently cracked open. The Sweden Democrats may or may not get anywhere in the end but the political environment as a whole has turned against you, has it not?

The problem with you is that you think that the socialist movement is the workers movement. It is not. You also seem to think that voting figures is somehow indicative of the movement in the working class. It is not.
We cant just magically turn "fascists into socialists", what we can do is to create room for class struggle to happen and then the worker with fascist ideas maybe will understand what his or hers real interests are. We dont need them to even use the term socialist about themselves, we just need the class a whole to take collective action.

No the political environment as a whole has turned in our direction. We are winning because we have forced a change in the topic of debate, have you not read anything I have wrote?



We come back to this basic philosophical difference, dont we? . No one is saying it is "only about ideas". It is you - not me - who is making a false dichotomy between ideas and material conditions where none exists. You talk of creating "a room where these ideas can happen" - as if creating such a "room" does not itself involve promoting iideas. Ironically you are the one who is being the idealist here by detaching ideas from material conditions in this artificial way

You say: "they will force their way, they will force their topic of debate as long as you dont have them on the run". What "debate" might I ask? Did you ever debate them? I thought the standard argument of antifascists was that you cannot reason with a fascist because they are unreasonable - irrational. If so how are they to become socialists?

And I disagree with you when you say "The only really dangerous fascist is one that is organised" . Organised fascismn has its roots in the informal fascism that lurks beneath the surface. Lop iff its head without uprooting its roots and it will sprout up again and if necessary in some other form, reinvigorated and even stronger than bfeore. I say this as one whose profession is a gardener
Why should you debate with an organised fascist? They have probably an interest in being a fascist, a material interest to defend their privileges. The working class fascist who is not that many will realise their own material interest when class struggle takes place.

What should we debate with the fascists? We have totally separate interests.

The only debate we should have is directly with the working class and the common working class interest.


This I am very sorry to say is what the anti-fascist movement is doing - lopping off the head of fascism without getting anywhere near to uprooting its roots....
You cant destroy fascist ideas as long as capitalism exists. You seem to think that when we have "finally won the battle of ideas" the capitalist class and all those that have an interest in capitalism to survive will just magically accept these ideas and move out of the way for the working class to take what is theirs....

You are naive and foolish, and very dangerous.