Log in

View Full Version : A letter to an AFA member



MartinGomez89
28th August 2008, 17:22
Hello there! New on this foum here.

Ok so what Im about to post was originally an e-mail I sent to a certain AFA-member that I found on Youtube. He had videos on his channel that contained violence against nazis and xenophobes which he portrayed in a glamorizing fashion. The e-mail I sent him was merely a mail where I wanted to get certain questions answered about the organization AFA, how they resonate about some aspects etc (as you will see) since I often been curious on things such as those.
This person by the way you can find on youtube, just search for his name: "Antifafront".

Unfortunately he told me he was in too much of a hurry to answer my questions, but suggested I would go to this forum to present them here. This mail I sent him as an AFA-member was intended for him so it may not make much sense to you. Unless you dont have the same beliefs and ideas as this particular individual you may not feel it is intended for you. I figured since he told me to go to this forum there would be at least some people how may share his political beliefs etc and may also be members of the antifascist organization Antifa (AFA, antifa.se) or other similair groups, even though I undertand no one where can represent his unique opinion especially if you dont even know who he is.
AFA as I see it is an organization thats very active in Sweden. They often try their best to prevent meetings between political parties they accuse of being racist or fascist.

So anyway here is the mail I sent to him:

"Hello there, I take it you are an active member in the so called antifascist organization ANTIFA. Antifa is an orginazation I never really actually understood for a couple of reasons, and by that I mean that I cant get a grip on how antifa members think and resonate. Perhaps you could at least do me the favour and give me your point of view.

The thing Im wondering the most is: Why cant antifa instead of physically fighting police on the street and various other "enemies" fight with words by debating with your opponents? Surely you must admit that intellectual debate with words is far more effective and will also give your organization a much better image among people who are unsure if you are legit or not. Its not like racism, nazism or fascism is going to dissappear because you beat a few individuals who share this belief to the ground or yell at them. Why dont you meet the people you oppose in intelligent debate? You will be able to give your arguments why you are against their ways and you will also make other people understand what Antifa stands for. You can only win on doing so, unless your opponent wins the debate that is... But should they be able to do that? I mean if you are sure your ideology is superior surely you should be able to present arguments to why that is. The thing is you are getting the people against you and more and more are actually starting to sympathize with the ones you oppose. Then you give them a "victim" image which they enjoy because then not only will people sympathize with them, people will listen to what they have to say.

Why are Antifa members so against open debate in a democratic, civilized and proper manner with the political parties who you accuse for being racists and xenophobes? I have only ONCE seen a debate with a representant for Antifa and this debate is over 10 years old. Not so long ago a political party here in Sweden called the Swedendemocrats (SD) had a public meeting to inform people of their politics, just like all political parties do. Several antifa members showed up to silence the meeting by making loud noises. SD then challenged the antifa members to a debate and they ALL rejected the offer. This really gives a bad image of the way Antifa do things. They are willing to show up at a public and totally legit meeting and try their best to spoil it by deliberately stomping on the freedom of speech and freedom of meeting laws, two of the very most important foundations in a democratic society, and when they are asked to present their arguements, they refuse. This is all other then democratic, and how is it different from fascism in the term of silecning critisism and rejecting people the right to exercise their freedom of speech? Surely you must agree this behaviour should be unacceptable. And whatever happened to being tolerant or show solidarity? Two words that members of AFA or similair organizations love to use (apart from fascist), but shouldnt tolerance also include being tolerant even towards people who may not believe the same way you do?

((What bothers me the most in this particular case is that SD (Swedendemocrats) are NOT a racist or xenophobic political party. Their opinions are NOT racist. For goodness sake they have a lot of politicians of foreign descent at high posts within their party. However they have some opinions then many politically correct people may find offensive and it also depends on how you interpretate things.))

This has always puzzled me. I went to Antifas website (antifa.se – the Swedish site for AFA) to find out more about what are their political standpoints and why do they act the way they do. Since this was their official site I was sure there was at least some intelligent member of the organization who had presented a serious answer. But no.. What I read was vague and diffuse and quite frankly made me angry. They said something like "there is no reason at all as we see it to be nice to any fascists". Whatever happened to the people saying "I dont like your opinion but I'll fight to the deaht for your right to say it". Where have they all gone? Also its not about being “nice”. Its about giving people the right to exercise their democratic rights, and its about following the law that’s clearly against physical abuse. This being said its clear antifa does not support some of the most basic and for me obvious foundations of a free democratic society.

What makes me more sad is that they are totally against intelligent debate with arguments that I was talking about earlier. On their site there was a ridiculous statement saying something like that "we cant face fascists with flowers and friendly dialogue" meaning it would justify physical violence and lynching of people who happen to believe in something you classify as racist or simply just wrong or politically incorrect. Whoever wrote that on Antifas site has no idea what he or she is talking about. The pen is more powerful then the sword!!! What kind of mentality is that? Defeat anyone who doesn’t think like us because that’s easier then inform them and try to “convert” them. I always wondered also why antifa members choose to cover their faces in such a cowardly fashion. Well on the site it said it was because so they would avoid being tracked down by the so called fascists and personally attacked or lynched. However this kind of lynching and intimidation is what the enemies of antifa are experiencing. Thats hypocrisy in its purest definition. If you are so sure your intentions and beliefs are noble and right then why not show your face, stand up for your beliefs and dont hide behind a mask like a coward. Or is it just that AFA-members are afraid to get caught by the police? If so then wouldnt it be a good idea to protest in legal ways without involving violence?

I live in Gothenburg, Sweden which was the target for violent organizations such as Antifa in 2001 when the riots began. I watched with sadness as protesters instead of trying to give away their poltical standpoint and protest in a legit way, vandalized much of the innercity and injured innocent people. Repairs estimated up to 10 million swedish crowns of taxpayer money just for the mainstreet alone. Have you any idea how much hatred something like that causes towards your group? Have you never wondered why "racist" political parties are getting more and more votes and more and more accepted? Its because they organize themselves. They fight with words, debating, and get more people on their side. They have since long abandoned their rockthrowing and hooligan ways, except for a small minority.

So as I see it, Antifa are a violent organization. Its also undemocratic and it actually helps the racists and nazis and in many aspects they are just comitting the crimes they accuse their enemies of comitting. If you have ANY intelligent arguments please reply them back to me. I hope this mail has awakened your brain to make you understand how someone like me see it. Please reply back even if you dont want to get into a debate.

Yours truely,
Martin Sonesson Gomez
(Here is where my mail is supposed to be but I cant post it for some reason since its considered to be a website URL, instead u can PM)

----------------------------------------------------

So if anyone else have a better answer then "Im busy, cant answer" please feel free to reply here to e-mail me, or even add me on MSN messenger.

/ Martin

Forward Union
28th August 2008, 17:27
AFA doesnt exist anymore.

Pirate turtle the 11th
28th August 2008, 17:51
Antifa use violent to confront nazism for a few reasons.

One of these being alot of nazis have a macho thing were they will attack people they dont like (gays blacks etc) and when antifa beats the nazis up it damages there macho image.

Sasha
28th August 2008, 17:58
afa does exsist still, i'm a member myself, in almost al the european countrys even just not in the UK.

although i'm also in no hury to reply to an email like this, i dont see much point in spending my pressious time with argueing with a peacenik elitist liberal a few short notes.

- non-violence is a white male middel/upperclass privelige
- i'm no democrat, so why should my actions or group be?
- we dont debate with racist/fasist parties because we see that as legitamising them (no platform policy, see relevant topic)

more soon

nuisance
28th August 2008, 18:13
Antifa isn't AFA.

MartinGomez89
28th August 2008, 18:15
afa does exsist still, i'm a member myself, in almost al the european countrys even just not in the UK.

although i'm also in no hury to reply to an email like this, i dont see much point in spending my pressious time with argueing with a peacenik elitist liberal a few short notes.

- non-violence is a white male middel/upperclass privelige
- i'm no democrat, so why should my actions or group be?
- we dont debate with racist/fasist parties because we see that as legitamising them (no platform policy, see relevant topic)

more soon

"i'm no democrat, so why should my actions or group be?" Ok fine. You are against freedom of speech and freedom of expression thats your problem. Do you understand the irony that u use these rights to protest against them? Could you at least give me a good alternative to a democratic society? Dictatorship? Anarchy? Please tell me

"we dont debate with racist/fasist parties because we see that as legitamising them" Yes I fully understand that. But can we at least agree on that not giving them attention and trying to ignore them will give them a kind of underdog-status and may actually help them in some ways? Please allow me to present a short example of a situation here in sweden. These two major so called racist political parties called ND and SD (nationaldemocrats and swedendemocrats) were starting to get a little bit of attention in the media here in sweden. all the debaters and politicians tactics said theyre tactics to counter them was to not give them any attention, not face them in debate, not having them on tv etc. However this clearly failed and both of these political parties got more and more votes, lot more then any had predicted. So now the politicians have realized their tactics didnt work so now theyre actively debating them in the media. i could specify this example more but i just wanted to give a short one in order to show that ignoring, denying and ridiculing political groups could be in their benefit

Sam_b
28th August 2008, 18:30
You are against freedom of speech and freedom of expression thats your problem

Stop your preaching right there. You can go on about 'freedom of speech' all you want, but listen to some facts here. Fascist organisations, such as the BNP, NF, Social Democrats, NPD etc are fascist and racist parties, who if elected to positions of power will remove any remnants of democracy we have left. Do you seriously think if these parties end up leading a nation state they will exert some sort of tolerance of speech to the left, or anything that goes against the fascist line? No.

Look what happened in Nazi Germany for example: many socialists there made a mistake by allowing the Nazi Party this 'freedom of speech' and look what happened. Surely if we are in ffavour of freedom of speech we have to stamp out those who wish to destroy it in the name of fascism?

Your idea of not debating etc causing increased votes for fascism is a wrong one, and you've made the link to it here without any actual evidence. The facts would state that these parties are getting an increased vote due to them exploiting an already vulnerable section of society (for example, Muslims) and getting their message into local communities. That's the problem we are faced with right now.

All socialists should support a no platform for fascists policy and should be involving themselves in grassroots activist and united front work to oppose fascism wherever it goes.

Holden Caulfield
28th August 2008, 18:39
try these two threads for a basic grasp of what militant anti-fascism is all about, they also contain legitimate criticisms from other revolutionary leftists,

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-bnp-fascist-t85164/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/wsm-interview-anti-t86736/index.html

i know neither answer your post directly but i think there are some answers for you in there somewhere.

anything else you want to talk about after you read these i will be more than happy to answer your queries,

MartinGomez89
28th August 2008, 18:51
Stop your preaching right there. You can go on about 'freedom of speech' all you want, but listen to some facts here. Fascist organisations, such as the BNP, NF, Social Democrats, NPD etc are fascist and racist parties, who if elected to positions of power will remove any remnants of democracy we have left. Do you seriously think if these parties end up leading a nation state they will exert some sort of tolerance of speech to the left, or anything that goes against the fascist line? No.

Look what happened in Nazi Germany for example: many socialists there made a mistake by allowing the Nazi Party this 'freedom of speech' and look what happened. Surely if we are in ffavour of freedom of speech we have to stamp out those who wish to destroy it in the name of fascism?

Your idea of not debating etc causing increased votes for fascism is a wrong one, and you've made the link to it here without any actual evidence. The facts would state that these parties are getting an increased vote due to them exploiting an already vulnerable section of society (for example, Muslims) and getting their message into local communities. That's the problem we are faced with right now.

All socialists should support a no platform for fascists policy and should be involving themselves in grassroots activist and united front work to oppose fascism wherever it goes.

What you say may very well be true. I dont know any of those groups you mentioned, I only know about the ones here in Sweden, some of them being accused of racism when anyone who reads about them can see theyre clearly not (ND, SD). Yet people here are throwing words at them such as fascists or racists without questioning: What is the real definition of these words or WHY are these political parties racists, nazis, fasctists etc. Well no one has taken their time to learn anything about them so they think its enough to know the image media has given us. That being said I think its not very unfair to presume that same may have been with those political parties you mentioned but I would like to stress I dont know anything about as I said so you may very well be right.

I think your mentality is totally wrong. Do you really believe that limiting freedom for a certain group is justifiable because you claim they would do the same to you? Do you really think democracy has any link with the leftwing? So that if it werent for people like you we would all live in a fascist society a la Orwells 1984? I highly doubt it. So would probably true if an extremist rightwing (or leftwing) party got elected but to presume that of a rightwing party with democratic values is just wrong and not far from paranoia.

Youre making the nazi-example as usual. Im not going to go through what communism and extremist leftwing ideas has been responsible for in this world but you cant suggest the nationalsocialists of nazi-germany was a moderate, democratic party they never even pretended to be that. They showed their extreme ideas early.

"Your idea of not debating etc causing increased votes for fascism is a wrong one, and you've made the link to it here without any actual evidence." Yes I understand its not good making statements without providing evidence. If youre interested I can pm you articles or newsbroadcasts that support this though, only problem is its all in Swedish.

"The facts would state that these parties are getting an increased vote due to them exploiting an already vulnerable section of society (for example, Muslims) and getting their message into local communities." Agreed. But instead of silencing them dont you think a better alternative would be to face these in your opinion false arguements and provide evidence that muslim immigration (for intance) is NOT responsible for increased criminality and things like. When no one counters them or questions them they can say what they want without having to debate why or provide evidence and people might very well believe them because no one says theyre wrong.

Sam_b
28th August 2008, 23:52
But instead of silencing them dont you think a better alternative would be to face these in your opinion false arguements and provide evidence that muslim immigration (for intance) is NOT responsible for increased criminality and things like.

Not at all. We have to be militant and steadfast in our opposition to fascism, and in several cases the no platform policy has been reaping rewards. As another comrade has already said, we legitimise their views if we allow them the proper forum to debate them. This also increases their media exposure.

We have to organise ourselves in broad united front coalitions that are anti-racist and anti-fascist in order to make headway here. It is through this that we make people aware of what these people are and what they are doing, and why it is totally and thoroughly reprehensible.

Revolutiondownunder
29th August 2008, 05:15
The problem is that groups like SD are arguably not fascist, just racist. Perhaps with members or leaders sympathetic to fascism.

The BNP are trying to head down the same path, as are the National alliance in Italy [which is now a part of the ruling coalition].

Groups like the NPD are clearly nazis and have an extended nazi base, as are the ND in sweden.

Calling groups that are racist, racist. And physically confronting them for holding unacceptable ideas is one thing, calling them fascists and linking them with Hitler whilst vandalising entire neighbourhoods that you should be trying to win over is a different matter.

Antifa in Holland does valuable outreach work in refugee communities and many other communities, but other than them I dont see many antifa groups doing the hard yards to win the hearts and minds.

There will always be idiots on a big enough mass demo who feel the need to do something stupid {like vandalise a house} which turns locals against the antifa.

The idea that some on this forum have put foward that mass actions which cause property damage somehow get the locals onside is absurd, the only [english language] recent evidence of this is an article from the Derby Newspaper about the BNps scumfest that was written by a reporter hostile to the BNP for being shut out of the RWB area. Every named person in that article was anti-bnp BEFORE the event started, the idea that the residents of the town were all turned against the BNP because of the antifa/UAF/NSTBNP rally is a farce.

This is not to say that confrontation does not have its place in defending radicalised working class communities, Cable st being the most famous example, but those communities have to be built first.

Reports from the ground said that the average non-political resident in Denby saw the anti-fascist protesters as being "outsiders".

The first priority of anti-fascism has to be the creation of class conscious working class communities which will oppose facism on their own, without middle class uni students.

Sasha
29th August 2008, 08:51
"i'm no democrat, so why should my actions or group be?" Ok fine. You are against freedom of speech and freedom of expression thats your problem. Do you understand the irony that u use these rights to protest against them? Could you at least give me a good alternative to a democratic society? Dictatorship? Anarchy? Please tell me


well, the name of this board should give you a clue, "revleft" stands for revolutionary left so you shouldn't be suprised to find some people here who reject "demockracy" (pun intendet). I myself am an anarcho-communist/autonomist.
and no i dont see no irony at all, because i dont speak or express my self by the grace of the powers that be, first of all my experience is that those "freedoms" are in no way guaranteed (if a police army break down the door of your house 3 times in one weekend with batons and teargas a plenty just to remove a banner critising a govermentminister you'l lose those ilusions prety soon) and secondly; i would speak out and express my self even more if it was outlawed.
so to sum up; i'm no democrat, not in present and not in the original meaning of the word, i'll take sparta anytime over athens....

aty
29th August 2008, 15:48
well, the name of this board should give you a clue, "revleft" stands for revolutionary left so you shouldn't be suprised to find some people here who reject "demockracy" (pun intendet). I myself am an anarcho-communist/autonomist.
and no i dont see no irony at all, because i dont speak or express my self by the grace of the powers that be, first of all my experience is that those "freedoms" are in no way guaranteed (if a police army break down the door of your house 3 times in one weekend with batons and teargas a plenty just to remove a banner critising a govermentminister you'l lose those ilusions prety soon) and secondly; i would speak out and express my self even more if it was outlawed.
so to sum up; i'm no democrat, not in present and not in the original meaning of the word, i'll take sparta anytime over athens....
Why the fuck do you call yourself Anarcho-communist if you reject democracy?

Sasha
30th August 2008, 00:45
at its best democracy is the dictatorship of the majority, at its worst its a charade to protect the interest of the bourgasie.
in dutch we have a subtle diffirence between what the state calls "de democratie" (read the liberal-capatlist status quo) and what we non-authorian lefties strive for which some people would call "basis-democratie", i myself try to avoid use the word altogether.
its like the difrence between being liberal and being a liberal. (wich in dutch is even more confusing because liberal is not liberal in dutch, its called progressiv, liberal means most of the time neo-con capatlist in dutch)

aty
30th August 2008, 03:46
at its best democracy is the dictatorship of the majority, at its worst its a charade to protect the interest of the bourgasie.
in dutch we have a subtle diffirence between what the state calls "de democratie" (read the liberal-capatlist status quo) and what we non-authorian lefties strive for which some people would call "basis-democratie", i myself try to avoid use the word altogether.
its like the difrence between being liberal and being a liberal. (wich in dutch is even more confusing because liberal is not liberal in dutch, its called progressiv, liberal means most of the time neo-con capatlist in dutch)
But what we strive for is more democracy, direct democracy where we also control the means of production and the whole society in a democratic way. I dont see todays "capitalist-democracy" when you vote one time in every fourth year as a real democracy and a society where some few rich men controll the economy. Then i would say that we as communists are the real democrats.

Sasha
30th August 2008, 11:39
@ aty;
true, if you put it like that i agree wholehartly
but for somereason i think that MartinGomez89 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=17466)'s ideas about democracy are quite diferent than ours.
plus you have off course the orginal meaning of democracy, in athens only a very small portion of the population was allowed the vote, the rich male population of athenian backround. in a lot of ways the enlighted despotic spartan society was way more fair and "democratic", women, poor people, non-greeks and even slaves had a lot more right and were considerd a lot more fellow humans than in athens.
Hence my; i'll take sparta over athens everyday earlier in the thread.
(http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=17466)

Charles Xavier
30th August 2008, 14:40
- non-violence is a white male middel/upperclass privelige
- i'm no democrat, so why should my actions or group be?
- we dont debate with racist/fasist parties because we see that as legitamising them (no platform policy, see relevant topic)

more soon
Non-violence is nessicary unless needed
Democratic
Its good to prepare against Racist/Fascists parties' gangs, but I fail to see how correcting their world view is legitamizing them. some are just confused and exploited sons and daughters of the working class who think they are mistreated by minorities and don't realized they are mistreated because they are working class and the people who rule are capitalists. I think fighting them legitamizes them as a force to be reckoned with at this point they are not. I think however its still important to be vigilant, they are the ones used as a meatshield for the ruling classes under fascism.

Sasha
30th August 2008, 16:11
anyone believing in/preaching non-violence (and everbody else btw) i recomend this excelent book:

http://www.akpress.org/2005/items/hownonviolenceprotectsthestate

for those not willing to puy ten bucks:
http://onebigtorrent.org/torrents/3828/HOW-NONVIOLENCE-PROTECTS-THE-STATE--Peter-Gelderloos

PRC-UTE
30th August 2008, 16:33
AFA doesnt exist anymore.

They do.

Omi
8th September 2008, 18:13
To add something:
Fuck freedom of speech, the so called ''pillar of society'' we are founded on. Heck, we don't even have the freedom to form our own opinions, the capitalist newspapers and TV channels tell us what to think, do, be like, dress, and behave. When indypendant news media are erected, you immediatly have petit bourgoisie talking bullshit there, thinking it is a free ''say what you want'' zone, and when that gets deleted they claim the founders are against freedom of speech fundamentally!

That's whats wrong with your outdated bourgois morale, thinking fascists can be countered through ''intelligent'' debate on public TV/Radio/Internet/Newspaper/Tabloid media. Fuck you, open your eyes you ignorant retard. You may like the bourgois slavery you live in, your pathetic capitalist run life, but don't come crying to us if you actually get threathened by the state or the fascists themselves one day.

That said, I want to add that being an anarchist I am in favour of direct democracy, not of the capitalist bourgois propaganda campains every now and then, which forces us to elect a new person to tell us how bad we are getting screwed this time. And ignorant bastards telling us how it is the fascists ''democratic right'' to preach and practice the filth they want.

I'm sorry for this rant and I've seen this poster is already restricted, but I've really had it with these ignorant fucks...:glare: