Civil Rights: the Best way to fight Fascism

[cobrawolf_meiji]

The best way to fight Fascist ideas is to support Civil Rights. Racism it self has always gone hand and hand with Fascism and Nazism since the Mid-20th century. Civil Rights is the right of the people to live the way they want without being oppressed Be they Capitalist or Communist, Christian or Muslim, Straight or gay, Black, white, Native American or Asian. Civil Rights is what made America a power. Racists and Fascists hate Civil Rights as it keeps them from Oppressing the people. Civil Rights is what I see as the best Anti-Fascist movement I know of.

[tachosomoza]

The best way to fight Fascist ideas is to support Civil Rights. Racism it self has always gone hand and hand with Fascism and Nazism since the Mid-20th century. Civil Rights is the right of the people to live the way they want without being oppressed Be they Capitalist or Communist, Christian or Muslim, Straight or gay, Black, white, Native American or Asian. Civil Rights is what made America a power. Racists and Fascists hate Civil Rights as it keeps them from Oppressing the people. Civil Rights is what I see as the best Anti-Fascist movement I know of.

Yeah, all the WWII vets that fought in a segregated army and came back to lynch fellow black veterans were Nazis and fascists. Yes, fascists are racists, but not all racists are fascists. Can someone restrict this troll already?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Civil rights are backed only by the state that grants them. What use are they when the state is taken over by fascists?

[Stalinist Speaker]

I still prefer baseball Bats and rocks.

[the debater]

I still prefer baseball Bats and rocks.

Or, perhaps resorting to reasoning and logical, intellectual arguments.

[Rafiq]

Anything which relies upon the bourgeois state in order to exist will never prove effective, in the end. Fascism has no modern ideological context, besides in Europe and perhaps Islamism.

[Red_Banner]

Or, perhaps resorting to reasoning and logical, intellectual arguments.

:rolleyes:
Yes, cause a Nazi is going to keep his gun holstered while he listens to your arguments.

[the debater]

:rolleyes:
Yes, cause a Nazi is going to keep his gun holstered while he listens to your arguments.

Well, Ares88 did. Perhaps we need to get more people onto Stormfront's open forums. For some reason, I'm one of the few RevLefters who actually cares about online debating, and taking it seriously.

[bcbm]

Well, Ares88 did. Perhaps we need to get more people onto Stormfront's open forums. For some reason, I'm one of the few RevLefters who actually cares about online debating, and taking it seriously.

the times i debated with nazis online seemed a lot less effective than the times some people made it impossible for them to have any public presence

[Flying Purple People Eater]

The OP is a massive troll. Just earlier he was praising capitalist hellhole China as a 'beacon of socialism'.

Also, it's hard to debate with nazis if you aren't their ethnicity, debater. They literally just dismiss you on the spot, and carry on with their pseudo-scientific anthropological nonsense that's been dated for 50 god-damned years. Hell, some might even assault you. This has happened to a friend of mine (and extremely rarely, I) multiple times when encountering your everyday white racist - I can't even imagine the reaction one would get from an outright fascist!

I liked the BPP's way of dealing with 'rebel' boneheads: go out in groups, corner people and rip confed and nazi memorabilia off their clothing. Guaranteed one of the best ways to fight fascism - ever.

[Stalinist Speaker]

Or, perhaps resorting to reasoning and logical, intellectual arguments.

Have you ever identified yourself as an communist in front of an hardcore nazi in real life?
I don't think so.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well, Ares88 did. Perhaps we need to get more people onto Stormfront's open forums. For some reason, I'm one of the few RevLefters who actually cares about online debating, and taking it seriously.I think it would be more effective to talk to people who actually already recognize systemic racism and oppression but either don't know what can be done about it or have liberal (ineffective) answers and strategies to the problem.

In the US racial attitudes and the old structures of Jim Crow racism and nothern urban segregation were not challenged and changed because white racists became less racist or the ignorance of well-meaning whites was cured through discussion by anti-racist whites - not on a decisive scale anyway - but because movements emerged to challenge the structural pillars of racism at that time and because black people made their own demands and organized. In turn that's what helped disabuse many white people of the racist assumptions or ignorance.

Anyone can (and should if it's worth your time) argue with induviduals about their political views and assumptions, but it's not a way to "fight racism" becuase racism doesn't spring from people's induvidual "irrational ideas" or ignorance, it is rooted much deeper.

So people organizing against structural racism and building a solid movements is the best way to challenge racism IMO, and a class movement is the way to defeat it. Organized racists, however are a detriment and a direct (often physical) threat to people being able to challenge these things. This is why they often use vigilanteism or intimidation against anyone who dares fight against racism - they want to "keep people in their place" and we want people to challenge inequality and oppression, so organized racists need to be confronted.

[the debater]

I think it would be more effective to talk to people who actually already recognize systemic racism and oppression but either don't know what can be done about it or have liberal (ineffective) answers and strategies to the problem.

In the US racial attitudes and the old structures of Jim Crow racism and nothern urban segregation were not challenged and changed because white racists became less racist or the ignorance of well-meaning whites was cured through discussion by anti-racist whites - not on a decisive scale anyway - but because movements emerged to challenge the structural pillars of racism at that time and because black people made their own demands and organized. In turn that's what helped disabuse many white people of the racist assumptions or ignorance.

Anyone can (and should if it's worth your time) argue with induviduals about their political views and assumptions, but it's not a way to "fight racism" becuase racism doesn't spring from people's induvidual "irrational ideas" or ignorance, it is rooted much deeper.

So people organizing against structural racism and building a solid movements is the best way to challenge racism IMO, and a class movement is the way to defeat it. Organized racists, however are a detriment and a direct (often physical) threat to people being able to challenge these things. This is why they often use vigilanteism or intimidation against anyone who dares fight against racism - they want to "keep people in their place" and we want people to challenge inequality and oppression, so organized racists need to be confronted.

Perhaps. But do not underestimate the power of online debating using direct refutations. In addition to Ares88, there was actually an East Asian supremacist named "Japan1234" who was on SF back during the summer. All I had to do was show him data pertaining to GCSEs in Britain, and how poor white boys had the worst scores on them, and he basically left SF. Haven't heard from him since. Recently, I also saw another person named "Fero" who apparently asked for their account on SF to be deleted. Do not be deceived, there are in fact numerous white nationalists and white nationalist sympathizers who are actually willing to listen to good arguments against white supremacy. Arguments like the Columbus Ohio crime study, poor white boys doing badly on the GCSEs, the possibility of rich blacks still living in poor neighborhoods, thus causing them to get bad grades on the SAT despite their economic wealth, quotes about the inferiority of white Europeans during the times of the Greeks, etc, etc.

If anyone is willing to, I'll pretend to be a WN, and they can hone their debating skills with me to a certain extant. One of my strengths is being able to understand my intellectual opponents, so I could probably play a convincing white nationalist if I wanted to.

[RedHal]

omg do you put a notch on your belt and pat yourself on the back every time you convince some anonymous internet Scumfronter about the errors of his ways, you sure do sound overly proud of yourself:laugh:

[the debater]

omg do you put a notch on your belt and pat yourself on the back every time you convince some anonymous internet Scumfronter about the errors of his ways, you sure do sound overly proud of yourself:laugh:

No, my point is that online debating can be an effective way of defeating white supremacist arguments. Direct refutations are the way to go in this regard.

I do put a notch on my belt and I do pat myself on the back for using proper grammar and punctuation however.

Take the imagination song from South Park, and replace the lyric "imagination" with "direct refutations." Viola. You now have the "direct refutations" song in your head to help you understand the importance of direct refutations

[Thirsty Crow]

Or, perhaps resorting to reasoning and logical, intellectual arguments.
I'm willing to wager that you haven't met, face to face, a neo-nazi in your entire life. Much less a whole crew of 'em.

My god the power of online debating.

[tachosomoza]

Well, Ares88 did. Perhaps we need to get more people onto Stormfront's open forums. For some reason, I'm one of the few RevLefters who actually cares about online debating, and taking it seriously.

The Bolsheviks took Royalists and other assorted counterrevolutionary trash out and shot them for a reason. There is no reasoning with these people, they want to fucking kill anybody who doesn't think or look like them. If you're a person of color and you run into some fascists, good luck trying to engage and debate with them while they're trying to turn you into the new Mulugeta Seraw. The immigrants and migrants in Greece literally can't debate and argue with Golden Dawn members. The Chechens, Dagestanis, and Africans in Moscow can't debate and sway the extremely violent Russian neo Nazis to their side, their skin color renders them incapable of doing so. The Jews and Roma under Hitler couldn't talk the Nazis into opening the gas chambers. The only option was and is to fight them where they appear to do harm. What is arguing on the internet achieving?

[Rafiq]

If all struggle was solved by debate, the linguists would inherit the Earth. If you debate with a Nazi online, without the presence of a significant audience, for purposes of propaganda, you are a counter-revolutionary. Language is only a means of conveying social power structures, ideology is only a means of conveying a class interests. The nazis will not be defeated by "proving them wrong", but through active, real struggle, through force and violence. The Bourgeoisie, the liberals, are not "wrong", their ideology perfectly conveys a real class interest. They know where they stand, as do we, it is a pure struggle for power.

A slave master will not give up his slaves by being convinced. He adheres to ideology and makes arguments in order to sustain that relationship. Thus, social relationships precede political debates. It is the relationship itself which is the argument, it is it's own justification, in the eyes of the master.

[the debater]

If all struggle was solved by debate, the linguists would inherit the Earth. If you debate with a Nazi online, without the presence of a significant audience, for purposes of propaganda, you are a counter-revolutionary. Language is only a means of conveying social power structures, ideology is only a means of conveying a class interests. The nazis will not be defeated by "proving them wrong", but through active, real struggle, through force and violence. The Bourgeoisie, the liberals, are not "wrong", their ideology perfectly conveys a real class interest. They know where they stand, as do we, it is a pure struggle for power.

A slave master will not give up his slaves by being convinced. He adheres to ideology and makes arguments in order to sustain that relationship. Thus, social relationships precede political debates. It is the relationship itself which is the argument, it is it's own justification, in the eyes of the master.

However, while some fascists will never change their minds no matter how much evidence is pointed out to them, don't forget that there are plenty of borderline fascists/white nationalists who in fact are willing to listen to evidence and reason. It's these people that I try to reason with, to get them to leave white nationalism. There is hope for these white nationalists, if not for the really radical ones.

Besides, even if you can't reason with the most biased, irrational white nationalists, you can at least damage their egos by revealing uncomfortable facts to them that they might have never heard about before. Sometimes, a blow to one's ego is worse than a blow to the head or to a physical body part.

[synthesis]

However, while some fascists will never change their minds no matter how much evidence is pointed out to them, don't forget that there are plenty of borderline fascists/white nationalists who in fact are willing to listen to evidence and reason. It's these people that I try to reason with, to get them to leave white nationalism. There is hope for these white nationalists, if not for the really radical ones.

Besides, even if you can't reason with the most biased, irrational white nationalists, you can at least damage their egos by revealing uncomfortable facts to them that they might have never heard about before. Sometimes, a blow to one's ego is worse than a blow to the head or to a physical body part.

You're still playing into their racial worldview and dichotomy. Why is it so important for you to try to convert these people?

Historically, unless I'm mistaken, there have been far more communists or members of communist parties that have gone over to the far-right than vice versa; I'm actually not aware of a single example of the latter.

[argeiphontes]

Just because there's a group or class interest in some belief, it doesn't follow that no individuals can be convinced that it's b.s. That would be an extremely deterministic point of view.

[bcbm]

However, while some fascists will never change their minds no matter how much evidence is pointed out to them, don't forget that there are plenty of borderline fascists/white nationalists who in fact are willing to listen to evidence and reason. It's these people that I try to reason with, to get them to leave white nationalism. There is hope for these white nationalists, if not for the really radical ones.

Besides, even if you can't reason with the most biased, irrational white nationalists, you can at least damage their egos by revealing uncomfortable facts to them that they might have never heard about before. Sometimes, a blow to one's ego is worse than a blow to the head or to a physical body part.

i think it is much more damaging to make them live in fear of organizing or sharing their ideas outside of crappy message boards and small, secluded gatherings of other racist troglodytes.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Just because there's a group or class interest in some belief, it doesn't follow that no individuals can be convinced that it's b.s. That would be an extremely deterministic point of view.True, but in the scheme of things, is it worth the effort? I mean we can debate induviduals and maybe shake the confidence of some noob fascists, but as others have said, the origin of fascist tendencies in society is not "ignorance" but deeper dynamics in society.

Debating with people who already oppose racism, but have liberal ideas about it or are demoralized about challenging it, even when on an induvidual basis can help organize an actual force that could fight against racism which in turn could help develop larger movements against it. We could debate libertarians all the time too, but unless there are other people who might be convinced by the debate, I don't think it would be worth our time compared to trying to organize workers who already know the system isn't working for them but feel there's no other option worth fighting for.

[argeiphontes]

True, but in the scheme of things, is it worth the effort? I mean we can debate induviduals and maybe shake the confidence of some noob fascists, but as others have said, the origin of fascist tendencies in society is not "ignorance" but deeper dynamics in society.

You're right, my post was meant against being overly deterministic. (See below please.)



Debating with people who already oppose racism, but have liberal ideas about it or are demoralized about challenging it, even when on an induvidual basis can help organize an actual force that could fight against racism which in turn could help develop larger movements against it. We could debate libertarians all the time too, but unless there are other people who might be convinced by the debate, I don't think it would be worth our time compared to trying to organize workers who already know the system isn't working for them but feel there's no other option worth fighting for.

That sounds reasonable to me. A lot of these right extremists are likely to be into it for irrational reasons (obviously), and would be impossible to argue with. Trying to find the one or two people that are actually willing to listen to reason and facts is probably not worth it when you consider where your time is better spent. (American History X is just a movie.) I guess the OP has to consider that.

[Thirsty Crow]

If you debate with a Nazi online, without the presence of a significant audience, for purposes of propaganda, you are a counter-revolutionary.
C'mon, stop being ridiculous.

[Rafiq]

Or you still hold counter revolutionary, or reactionary views, to assume that Nazis share with you some kind of playing field of reason. Or, if you think that it is a viable means of combating Nazism. We've all debated with them, the difference is thinking it can be strategic or tactical.