So why do we ban fascists?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

We keep racists, homophobes, and sexists restricted, but our policy is to ban fascists. I don't know; that just seems unnecessary and can be used as a weak rallying call - look, those socialists won't even let us make our point.

[RHIZOMES]

We keep racists, homophobes, and sexists restricted, but our policy is to ban fascists. I don't know; that just seems unnecessary and can be used as a weak rallying call - look, those socialists won't even let us make our point.

Well 2 reasons - Revleft is hosted on German servers, and it's against the law to allow a platform for fascism on German-hosted websites. Other reason is that I have NEVER met/talked to a fascist who is actually interested in debating and is anything more than a brainless troll. :lol:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

and it's against the law to allow a platform for fascism on German-hosted websites.

Well that's ridiculous, but I can now understand why. Thanks.

[Sam_b]

I think it merely reflects a strategy that many of us adopt, which is a no platform for fascists policy.

[Os Cangaceiros]

If not for the German law, I would say that it's ridiculous as well.

[bcbm]

can be used as a weak rallying call - look, those socialists won't even let us make our point.

Who gives a fuck? Fascists shouldn't be allowed to make their points, they should be beaten in the streets.

[Black Dagger]

Who gives a fuck? Fascists shouldn't be allowed to make their points, they should be beaten in the streets.

Indeed.

I really don't get ya point Gene; who cares what fascists think? Or say about communists? They're fascists. They're gonna talk shit no matter what we say or do, why on earth would we ever cater to them?

[Os Cangaceiros]

fascists!

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Who gives a fuck? Fascists shouldn't be allowed to make their points, they should be beaten in the streets.

I disagree. Beating people up for holding opinions - no matter how jarring and reactionary they may be - is not productive. It also does a discredit to anarchism to call attacks of the sort into legitimacy.


who cares what fascists think? Or say about communists? They're fascists. They're gonna talk shit no matter what we say or do, why on earth would we ever cater to them?Restricting one's ability to speak inadvertently springs consequences similar to prohibition. I for one would like to hear how exactly people buy into the nonsense about fascism. But since Germany has an inane law on the books, the ban is tolerable.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I really don't get ya point Gene; who cares what fascists think? Or say about communists? They're fascists. They're gonna talk shit no matter what we say or do, why on earth would we ever cater to them?
In general, we should only care about the opinions of people who have a chance of being persuaded to become socialists. The rest can go fuck themselves for all I care. Fascists could never be persuaded to become socialists, so they fall in the "fuck off" category.

However, when we ban someone, that's not a private matter between the person in question and the admin who bans him. It's a public act on a public forum. And as such, it can make us look bad if it seems that the person was unfairly banned, or banned for just stating an opinion.

So I'm rather torn on the issue of fascists. On the one hand I think they all deserve to have the living shit beaten out of them (or, on an internet forum, get banned), but on the other hand I think we must maintain the best and most friendly public image we possibly can.

[Plagueround]

But since Germany has an inane law on the books, the ban is tolerable.

I read somewhere that they had bad experiences with it in the past.

[bcbm]

I disagree. Beating people up for holding opinions - no matter how jarring and reactionary they may be - is not productive. It also does a discredit to anarchism to call attacks of the sort into legitimacy.

Really? I have a hunch the millions and millions of people who have been murdered by fascists might disagree with you. We aren't talking about simple opinions here. We are talking about people who want to round up and murder millions, if not more, of people. I don't have any tolerance for such people. They need to be destroyed, not have space for their ideas provided by leftists.

And I don't think defending billions of people discredits anarchism.


Restricting one's ability to speak inadvertently springs consequences similar to prohibition.

No one is restricting anything. There a million places fascists can spout their bullshit. Just not here.


I for one would like to hear how exactly people buy into the nonsense about fascism.

Then go to Stormfront. The internet is a big place.

[Bilan]

We ban them because we can't shoot them over the internet.

[Black Dagger]

Beating people up for holding opinions - no matter how jarring and reactionary they may be - is not productive. It also does a discredit to anarchism to call attacks of the sort into legitimacy.

From my experience, the militant anarchist antifa stuff has actually won the respect of many people. Obviously some people think violence is 'bad' and so anyone using violence (except the pigs or military of course) is 'bad' - but people with such a naive view of the world are probably already hostile to anarchism. For other people who dont buy into this violent/non violent dichotomy, and who arent communists but nevertheless oppose the xenophobic etc. values of fascism - the idea of people fighting back against fascist groups is something that many people respect (esp. people who are the subject of racism, homophobia etc. from fascists and society generally) - even in some cases if they wouldnt do it themselves.



Restricting one's ability to speak inadvertently springs consequences similar to prohibition.

Like alcohol prohibiton? How so?

This is not a position driven by abstract moralism (like prohibition) - nor is the target of this 'prohibition' something that can actually be enjoyed in any way (like alcohol). We're talking about a violent ultra-nationalist (and often racist) ideology, laced with sexism and homophobia and anti-communist to the core.

This is a public forum, but for revolutionary leftists - it is dedicated to this purpose. And if we want to have an environment that is conducive to discussion amongst revolutionary leftists RL cannot be used as a soapbox for reactionaries. Indeed having a no-platform policy to fascists on RL will undoubtedly attract people to the forum - creating a anti-racist/sexist/homophobic environment where people do not have to put up with intimidation and prejudice. I certainly would not post on RL if fascists were left to post freely, this is 'Revolutionary Left' after all - no one comes here to read fascist shit.


I for one would like to hear how exactly people buy into the nonsense about fascism.

Then can i suggest joining stomfront? I have no idea why you would expect o learn about such people on a forum for revolutionary leftists?


However, when we ban someone, that's not a private matter between the person in question and the admin who bans him. It's a public act on a public forum. And as such, it can make us look bad if it seems that the person was unfairly banned, or banned for just stating an opinion.

I guess, but banning fascists from a revleftist forum is not what i'd call 'unfair' - so this is a non-issue?



So I'm rather torn on the issue of fascists. On the one hand I think they all deserve to have the living shit beaten out of them (or, on an internet forum, get banned), but on the other hand I think we must maintain the best and most friendly public image we possibly can.

Like what Gene has said, this makes no sense to me at all - its just so odd. No one cares about fascists, communists certainly shouldn't - but fascists are pretty much hated by everyone else too. Hell, as far as i can tell the majority of OIers even support RL's no-platform policy! I just dont understand this idea that people will be sympathetic with fascism because of the way they're treated on here, or even by communists in real life, they're about as popular as nazis (with whom most people probably conflate them).

[chimx]

This is a public forum, but for revolutionary leftists - it is dedicated to this purpose.

I'm largely indifferent on the issue, but I suppose I'm curious why we feel fascism is an ideology that is so important to single out, as opposed to advocates of capitalism. What specifically about fascism causes it to stand out in your opinion over capitalists or primitivists?

How do you define fascism? As far as what I've always seen it as, it's primary tenets are a very strong and autocratic central government that advocates very strong nationalist values, often violently-so. What specific political values do we feel have no space, even in OI, on this website?*


* this is all hypothetical I suppose, because the legal issues of having a german server trumps everything else.

[Bilan]

Think that through, Chimx.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Like what Gene has said, this makes no sense to me at all - its just so odd. No one cares about fascists, communists certainly shouldn't - but fascists are pretty much hated by everyone else too. Hell, as far as i can tell the majority of OIers even support RL's no-platform policy! I just dont understand this idea that people will be sympathetic with fascism because of the way they're treated on here, or even by communists in real life, they're about as popular as nazis (with whom most people probably conflate them).
Oh yes, when it comes to open fascists, that's absolutely true. They get no sympathy from anyone, which makes them fair game.

I was thinking about the ones who pretend not to be fascists and like to play the victim, yelling "help help, I'm a white man being repressed!" Their entire propaganda strategy revolves around trying to get sympathy. I'm not sure about the effectiveness of a no-platform policy against this group.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I'm largely indifferent on the issue, but I suppose I'm curious why we feel fascism is an ideology that is so important to single out, as opposed to advocates of capitalism. What specifically about fascism causes it to stand out in your opinion over capitalists or primitivists?
Well, fascism is usually not an ideology - not in the usual sense of "ideology" as a collection of related, consistent and coherent ideas about human society.

Most of the time, fascism literally doesn't make any sense - it makes no attempt to build a rational argument, or even a coherent political goal. Of all reactionaries, fascists are the most difficult to reason with, and the closest to being just plain stupid, or insane. The entire body of fascist "ideology" is one big conspiracy theory: The world is supposedly in the grip of a devious Jewish/Marxist/Muslim/Liberal/Masonic cabal that wants to oppress white people. No amount of evidence to the contrary can persuade a serious fascist that this evil conspiracy doesn't exist.

Fascism is not the most dangerous form of reactionary thought - today that role has been taken over by libertarianism - but fascism remains the most irrational.

[Black Dagger]

I'm largely indifferent on the issue, but I suppose I'm curious why we feel fascism is an ideology that is so important to single out, as opposed to advocates of capitalism. What specifically about fascism causes it to stand out in your opinion over capitalists or primitivists?

...

I guess the violent xenophobia/racism/nationalism/genocide/homophobia? As well as virulent chauvinism/patriarchal views that fascists usually advocate/support would be a major concern?

What stands out more to you? Someone who thinks the holocaust was 'great' and that 'we' should emulate the violent prejudices of its perpetrators or some petit-bourgeois kid who thinks 'communism is doomed to fail coz humans are greeeedy!'? This might sound like an 'extreme' example, but in this case it really is not - one only needs to read stormfront.

Moreover, one can be pro-capitalist or a primitivist and still be socially progressive. Fascists organise to attack (murder) and victimise oppressed peoples, pro-capitalists are usually armchair critics, most are not even capitalists and many are not even advocates of violence/violent oppression per se.

Also fascists seek to recruit working class folk to their bullshit, so a lot of their activity is directed to reinforcing/exploiting/creating divisions in the class- to turn us against each other - that is a major concern. Pro-capitalists and primitivists don't bother with stuff like that - they dont usually care about working class folk much at all really.

[Black Dagger]

I was thinking about the ones who pretend not to be fascists and like to play the victim, yelling "help help, I'm a white man being repressed!" Their entire propaganda strategy revolves around trying to get sympathy. I'm not sure about the effectiveness of a no-platform policy against this group.

The point is, trying to reason with fascists - of any stripe - is a waste of time. Fascism as an ideology is rabidly anti-communist (that is one of its defining features historically) - fascists do not come to RL to participate in discussions, to learn or hear 'our POV' - they come here because they think 'commies' are 'fags' and 'jew-lovers' - 'reverse racists' and all this other non-sense - they come here to 'teach the commies a lesson' - to troll, c'est tout. And trolls are banned so...

[The Feral Underclass]

The point is, trying to reason with fascists - of any stripe - is a waste of time. Fascism as an ideology is rabidly anti-communist (that is one of its defining features historically) - fascists do not come to RL to participate in discussions, to learn or hear 'our POV' - they come here because they think 'commies' are 'fags' and 'jew-lovers' - 'reverse racists' and all this other non-sense - they come here to 'teach the commies a lesson' - to troll, c'est tout. And trolls are banned so...

This forum has a no-platform policy. We don't allow fascists to post here because we don't believe they should have a platform for their ideas. Irrespective of the fact they may or may not be trolls.

[Edelweiss]

What TAT said. Fascism is not an opnion, it's a crime, and should be treated as such.


Revleft is hosted on German servers, and it's against the law to allow a platform for fascism on German-hosted websites

Not true actually. It's the glorification of the Nazi regime which is illegal, the use of certain Nazi symbols, or certain statements of "Volksverhetzung" (sedition) like denying the holocaust, call for violence etc.

But even if that woudln't be the case, I still would uphold our anti-platform policy.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Fascists could never be persuaded to become socialists, so they fall in the "fuck off" category.

I was under the impression that there are actually a couple of people on this site who used to be fascists/white supremacists.

[Sentinel]

I was under the impression that there are actually a couple of people on this site who used to be fascists/white supremacists.Who are those, just so we can keep track on them? You can never trust a 'former nazi' on the internet, and they should certainly not be let into the CC -- at least not without CC members bringing in solid, reliable beyond doubt evidence that they have changed and can be trusted.

I know that Spartan and the member Genosse Kotze used to be at least, are there more?

[Herman]

You'll forgive me if I don't cry for not allowing fascists roam around this forum.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I was thinking mostly of spartan, but wasn't there a Hoxhaist who was also outed as a former Nazi? I seem to remember that being the case. Can't remember the person's name, though.

[Bilan]

Comrade Nashedsa? :p

[Led Zeppelin]

We keep racists, homophobes, and sexists restricted, but our policy is to ban fascists.

This is not entirely true, racists, homophobes and sexists have been banned, depending on the "degree" of their beliefs.

For example, if a member posted stuff like "black people are stupid" they would probably be banned.

Fascists/Nazis are all three of those combined usually, and are very vehement in those beliefs, so I guess that's a reason to ban them.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I was thinking mostly of spartan, but wasn't there a Hoxhaist who was also outed as a former Nazi? I seem to remember that being the case. Can't remember the person's name, though.


Comrade Nashedsa? :p

Not her, I think. It was Comrade Slavyanski.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

This is not entirely true, racists, homophobes and sexists have been banned, depending on the "degree" of their beliefs.

For example, if a member posted stuff like "black people are stupid" they would probably be banned.

Fascists/Nazis are all three of those combined usually, and are very vehement in those beliefs, so I guess that's a reason to ban them.

Since the head honcho just discredited the argument that German law prohibits pro-fascist statements, why go into such generalizations? Not all fascists are strong racists and sexists. Xenophobic, probably, but that can be said of (almost) any resident conservative in hindsight of the illegal immigration debate.

There was a thread made a few weeks ago asking if people were former Nazis, and some answered in the affirmative. Now we can speculate just how strong their beliefs are when it comes to socialism, but the very fact they're out here on a forum devoted to Leftist thought, quasi-publicly admitting such a thing is stunning and evidence that no ideology holds people to the core.


The point is, trying to reason with fascists - of any stripe - is a waste of time. Fascism as an ideology is rabidly anti-communist (that is one of its defining features historically) - fascists do not come to RL to participate in discussions, to learn or hear 'our POV' - they come here because they think 'commies' are 'fags' and 'jew-lovers' - 'reverse racists' and all this other non-sense - they come here to 'teach the commies a lesson' - to troll, c'est tout. And trolls are banned so...

That's just another scathing generalization. Obviously fascists are anti-communist; so are capitalists. To say that fascism can be simplified into such bizarre and negative statements would be a mistake. I'm not saying most don't carry this thought process, but fascism can and has been independent of homophobia and antisemitism.

[Invader Zim]

Fascists already have far too many platforms from which to spew their hate. I see no good reason why this place should be added to that list of platforms.

[Wanted Man]

Fascism is not an opnion, it's a crime
This is the correct position.

Keep it the way it is, don't mind whiney libertarians.

[Sentinel]

We should definitely keep the no platform policy.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Fascists already have far too many platforms from which to spew their hate. I see no good reason why this place should be added to that list of platforms.

Fascism =/= Hatred.

While fascism tends to attract that crowd of ruthless racists, fascism itself is independent of hate. I've talked with self-proclaimed fascists who found Hitler abhorrent, whose ideology revolves around rabid corporate control but not attacking gays, blacks, or jews. Some even claimed that such actions were anti-fascist (and instead Nazi, which is a decent point) since fascism is a devotion to the state, and attacking its internal elements would weaken the state. Perhaps if there wasn't a no platform policy, people could better inform themselves on that fact. :laugh:

[Honggweilo]

there are enough spaces to engage in "discussion" with those excuses for human beings elsewhere on the net. No point for revleft to let fascist scum paracite on our forum bandwith.

[RaiseYourVoice]

Fascism =/= Hatred.

While fascism tends to attract that crowd of ruthless racists, fascism itself is independent of hate. I've talked with self-proclaimed fascists who found Hitler abhorrent, whose ideology revolves around rabid corporate control but not attacking gays, blacks, or jews. Some even claimed that such actions were anti-fascist (and instead Nazi, which is a decent point) since fascism is a devotion to the state, and attacking its internal elements would weaken the state. Perhaps if there wasn't a no platform policy, people could better inform themselves on that fact. :laugh:

THIS is the reason why we keep a no plattform policy! Of course I also heard a Nazi talk about how he isn't a fascist because fascists want to oppresse races and he wants to free them so actually he is the antifascist and we are supporting the fascists. People from the same organisation planned bombing a jewish house in my city, again people around him more than once beat up immigrants. No matter how they disguise themselves, fascist are fascists and deserve a bullet in their head, not a discussion board.

A different matter is singleing out people who have just become fascist or tend that way and talk to them. That actually might work. But those that come to public discussion are those that want to and sometimes can agitate people. They are stuck in their confused mindset and have to be isolated, not spread.

Actually i dont see why someone is in the CC who makes himself a puppet to spread "fascist aren't so bad" bullshit and i think you should be kicked out. The only reason i wont start a poll is that i cant be fucked to bother with all the "you are purging discussions!!!!1111" comments.

[Dean]

Actually i dont see why someone is in the CC who makes himself a puppet to spread "fascist aren't so bad" bullshit and i think you should be kicked out. The only reason i wont start a poll is that i cant be fucked to bother with all the "you are purging discussions!!!!1111" comments.

GeneCosta is only proposing that fascists need to show themselves to be extreme racists or homophobes to be banned. I am a bit more wary of their ilk, but I don't think his proposal is overall irrational.

[bcbm]

I've talked with self-proclaimed fascists who found Hitler abhorrent, whose ideology revolves around rabid corporate control but not attacking gays, blacks, or jews.

And what about communists, anarchists, unions, socialists, democrats, lazy people and the numerous others that were murdered by fascists all across the globe? I have no interest in dialog with people who want me and my comrades dead.

[Wanted Man]

Oh, god. Just when you think you've been bored to death sufficiently, someone comes in to remind us that 'non-racist fascists' exist. No shit, Sherlock; it's about the practical consequences. You also have nazis who claim to be autonomous, wave around antifa-like flags and say that they fight capitalism (Jewish capitalism, anyway) and claim that they are real anti-fascists, opposing antifa 'left fascist' violence.

In any case, it's all the same shit, different asshole. Of course, there may be individual fascists who are just misguided. But this isn't a lonely heart's club for people with the strangest misconceptions. But hey, if you want to try and 'turn' a fascist who is 'basically good', stick to the people you know. Or try Stormfront, see how they react.

[chimx]

Well from the bulk of responses, I'm assuming many of you are using Nazism and Fascism interchangeably. If by Fascism you really mean Nazism, I can understand your thinking. Let me reply to BlackDagger specifically so as to elaborate:


I guess the violent xenophobia/racism/nationalism/genocide/homophobia? As well as virulent chauvinism/patriarchal views that fascists usually advocate/support would be a major concern?

Many people here are restricted for being xenophobic, nationalistic, advocates of genocide (actually we have plenty of members on the forum that justify Soviet ethnic cleansing, maybe CCers?), homophobic, as well as advocating misogynistic opinions.

Now, aside for "soft racism", almost all racists get banned as LZ said. But it's important to remember that fascism is not a political system that was historically tied to racism. This was principally a consequence of the manfestation of fascism in Germany under Nazism, but Italian fascism was never particularly anti-Semitic or "hard racist" until the very end of the 1930s when it became more closely allied with German nazism. Invader Zim alluded to this fact when he said that fascism is a very diverse political system.

But what really makes fascism fascism is a very strong centralized state that operates a state corporatist economy (which was incidentally inspired originally by Italian anarcho-syndicalism) and emphasizes nation over the individual.

I would argue that is the core of fascism, and that the later part is where we later derive the anti-Semitism and racism, when the state decided to exclude certain ethnic groups from how they defined "the nation".

So again, my question is, what specifically about the core values of fascism warrant a no-platform policy on this website? Is it their advocacy of nationalism? Is it the state corporatism? is it the strong autocratic state? Is it a specific combination of these things?

I ask because I have a hunch that the virulent opposition to this system over that of others is because of the historical praxis of fascists which generally tend to be violent and racist. This seems especially true now in eastern Europe. BD seems to imply this in his response:


Fascists organise to attack (murder) and victimise oppressed peoples, pro-capitalists are usually armchair critics, most are not even capitalists and many are not even advocates of violence/violent oppression per se.

Also fascists seek to recruit working class folk to their bullshit, so a lot of their activity is directed to reinforcing/exploiting/creating divisions in the class- to turn us against each other - that is a major concern. Pro-capitalists and primitivists don't bother with stuff like that - they dont usually care about working class folk much at all really.

So again, it is about contemporary political praxis, not the ideology itself, that warrants banning?

Let me ask a hypothetical. Would you support the "no platform" policy, either here or in real life, for a person that identified with early Mussolini Fascism, in the sense that s/he was largely indifferent to race and didn't advocate ethnic violence or repression?


Lastly, to reiterate, I ask because I think this is an interesting discussion, not because I want to see revleft's policy change.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Oh, god. Just when you think you've been bored to death sufficiently, someone comes in to remind us that 'non-racist fascists' exist. No shit, Sherlock; it's about the practical consequences.

There are no practical consequences. Extremely racist fascists are banned. Ones who aren't get eaten alive with criticism and debate. It's not that distracting to have the OIer base expanded a little. If anything, our resident capitalists can see just why we oppose fascism so vehemently.


You also have nazis who claim to be autonomous, wave around antifa-like flags and say that they fight capitalism (Jewish capitalism, anyway) and claim that they are real anti-fascists, opposing antifa 'left fascist' violence.


Nazism isn't fascism, or at the very least it's a branch of fascism. The cultural motivations were quite different, with Nazism being more focused around the advancement of a race than a state. Italian fascism didn't cater to much racist and antisemitic ilk until Mussolini aligned himself with Hitler. To draw a distinction is perfectly legitimate. Furthermore, Stormfront is a white community. The focus on fascism is secondary in comparison. A lot of members are self-declared libertarians, nazis, and conservatives. Look at how many white nationalists turned out for Ron Paul.


Actually i dont see why someone is in the CC who makes himself a puppet to spread "fascist aren't so bad" bullshit and i think you should be kicked out. The only reason i wont start a poll is that i cant be fucked to bother with all the "you are purging discussions!!!!1111" comments.

Yes, let's ban everyone who puts up a critical response to the forum rules. That will surely help RevLeft develop.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

And what about communists, anarchists, unions, socialists, democrats, lazy people and the numerous others that were murdered by fascists all across the globe? I have no interest in dialog with people who want me and my comrades dead.


What about all the communists, anarchists, unions, socialists, democrats, lazy people, and numerous others killed by capitalists?

[Jazzratt]

What about all the communists, anarchists, unions, socialists, democrats, lazy people, and numerous others killed by capitalists?

Capitalism, as an ideology, rarely preaches (or even practices) killing of the opposition. It may silence us, but it's fascism that kills us.

[chimx]

but it's fascism that kills us

But that is in no way a defining characteristic of the ideology historically, nor is it a primary tenet. Like I said on the last page, is people's concern primarily with the contemporary praxis of most fascists?

[RaiseYourVoice]

If anything, our resident capitalists can see just why we oppose fascism so vehemently.
By banning the "bad fascists" and letting the "good fascists" stay? How about we only let those stay whose social demagogic rants are near perfection so they can recruit and confuse more people!


As for the fascism isn't nazism bullshit. Lets check some definitions


Fascism in power is the open, terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary), the most chauvinistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauvinism), the most imperialistic elements of finance capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism).



Right Wing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-Right_politics): Fascists are fervently against: Marxism, Socialism, Anarchism, Communism, Environmentalism; etc – in essence, they are against the progressive left in total, including moderate lefts (social democrats, etc). Fascism is an extreme right wing ideology, though it can be opportunistic.
Nationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism): Fascism places a very strong emphasis on patriotism and nationalism. Criticism of the nation's main ideals, especially war, is lambasted as unpatriotic at best, and treason at worst. State propaganda consistently broadcasts threats of attack, while justifying pre-emptive war. Fascism invariably seeks to instill in its people the warrior mentality: to always be vigilant, wary of strangers and suspicious of foreigners.
Hierarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy): Fascist society is ruled by a righteous leader, who is supported by an elite secret vanguard of capitalists. Hierarchy is prevalent throughout all aspects of society – every street, every workplace, every school, will have its local Hitler, part police-informer, part bureaucrat – and society is prepared for war at all times. The absolute power of the social hierarchy prevails over everything, and thus a totalitarian society is formed. Representative government is acceptable only if it can be controlled and regulated, direct democracy (e.g. Communism) is the greatest of all crimes. Any who oppose the social hierarchy of fascism will be imprisoned or executed.
Anti-equality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism): Fascism loathes the principles of economic equality and disdains equality between immigrant and citizen. Some forms of fascism extend the fight against equality into other areas: gender, sexual, minority or religious rights, for example.
Religious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion): Fascism contains a strong amount of reactionary religious beliefs, harking back to times when religion was strict, potent, and pure. Nearly all Fascist societies are Christian, and are supported by Catholic and Protestant churches.
Capitalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism): Fascism does not require revolution to exist in captialist society: fascists can be elected into office (though their disdain for elections usually means manipulation of the electoral system). They view parliamentary and congressional systems of government to be inefficient and weak, and will do their best to minimize its power over their policy agenda. Fascism exhibits the worst kind of capitalism where corporate power is absolute, and all vestiges of workers' rights are destroyed.
War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War): Fascism is capitalism at the stage of impotent imperialism. War can create markets that would not otherwise exist by wreaking massive devastation on a society, which then requires reconstruction! Fascism can thus "liberate" the survivors, provide huge loans to that society so fascist corporations can begin the process of rebuilding.
Voluntarist Ideology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntarism): Fascism adopts a certain kind of “voluntarism;” they believe that an act of will, if sufficiently powerful, can make something true. Thus all sorts of ideas about racial inferiority, historical destiny, even physical science, are supported by means of violence, in the belief that they can be made true. It is this sense that Fascism is subjectivist.
Anti-Modern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalism): Fascism loathes all kinds of modernism, especially creativity in the arts, whether acting as a mirror for life (where it does not conform to the Fascist ideal), or expressing deviant or innovative points of view. Fascism invariably burns books and victimises artists, and artists which do not promote the fascists ideals are seen as “decadent.” Fascism is hostile to broad learning and interest in other cultures, since such pursuits threaten the dominance of fascist myths. The peddling of conspiracy theories is usually substituted for the objective study of history.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#cite_note-23)

I don't know if you were ever involved in anti-fascist action, but all the nazi / fash organisations i know fit those definitons. What counts most for me is that their historical role is to fight the progressive working class movement. That means anything from confusing people with social demagogy to openly attacking socialists, immigrants etc.

For the "it isnt always rascist!!!" bullshit you might want to get a class based analysis of rascism. It is a means to divide the working class, to weaken our stance against the capistalists. As fascism is not some kind of classless system, but just the most oppressive rule of the most reactionary forces in the capitalist class, naturally it developes divide and rule mechanisms.



Yes, let's ban everyone who puts up a critical response to the forum rules. That will surely help RevLeft develop
No, lets kick everyone from the cc who spreads fascist demagogy under the name of tolerance.

[Invader Zim]

Fascism =/= Hatred.

While fascism tends to attract that crowd of ruthless racists, fascism itself is independent of hate. I've talked with self-proclaimed fascists who found Hitler abhorrent, whose ideology revolves around rabid corporate control but not attacking gays, blacks, or jews. Some even claimed that such actions were anti-fascist (and instead Nazi, which is a decent point) since fascism is a devotion to the state, and attacking its internal elements would weaken the state. Perhaps if there wasn't a no platform policy, people could better inform themselves on that fact. :laugh:


You know nothing about fascism. Fascism is inheretly an ideology of hate, it is based upon rabid nationalism and the idea of cultural and social superiority. I would write a long post to point out the ahistorical nature of your claims, but everyone here knows it.

[Edelweiss]

GeneCosta, you just won the "naive fool of the month" award. Congratulations.

[chimx]

Nobody has responded to my post... :(

[Hit The North]

Nobody has responded to my post... :(

Ok, how about: Please name the cuddly Fascist regime which didn't oppress workers and kill or, at least imprison, communists.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

GeneCosta, you just won the "naive fool of the month" award. Congratulations.

:rolleyes:

Personal attacks do nothing for the advancement of thought.


Ok, how about: Please name the cuddly Fascist regime which didn't oppress workers and kill or, at least imprison, communists.

That's a huge straw man. Who said anything about fascism being "cuddly?"

By the sound of it some of are you are actually afraid that people will get converted into fascism if someone argues in its favor. That is naive. Or, at the very least, you're defending the wrong type of people from "critical thought."

[Schrödinger's Cat]

You know nothing about fascism.

Unsupported by anything outside of your claims.


Fascism is inheretly an ideology of hate, it is based upon rabid nationalism and the idea of cultural and social superiority. I would write a long post to point out the ahistorical nature of your claims, but everyone here knows it.

Half of your statement is just a reiteration of what I already said. However to denote that fascism is inherently full of hate is pretty much a logical fallacy. Every ideology is in opposition to another, which creates friction that boils down to hate. Mussolini's defense for fascism was no more hateful of races than say modern day conservatism. More authoritarian? Certainly, but I think it's reprehensible to ban people just because they're authoritarian.

This is the first time I've ever heard "tolerant" used as an insult in a leftist forum. Yeah, I believe in hearing everyone out, regardless of how I first perceive them. It's called not being ignorant. Perhaps some users here should invest less time in putting up a defense for a collective mentality with their straw man arguments and look into dissent.

[#FF0000]

Nobody has responded to my post... :(

Yeah, I'm curious why that is, since it's kind of asking a question central to the topic. I'd like to see someone address it.

I'm edging towards Gene Costa's side on this one. It seems as though our banning policy only applies to Nazis as it is, so I don't see the harm in, say, letting a Mussolini fascist stay in the restricted area to be beaten daily with logic, from us and the other OIers, since the way it is, I think one could get away with only a restriction anyway.

[Socialistpenguin]

The issue seems to be going round that it's ok to merely restrict fascists as long as they're not overtly racist. GeneCosta provided the example of Mussolini, even though his regime DID come down heavily upon the Jews towards the end of his reign (see the "Manfiesto of Race" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto_of_Race) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto_of_Race)

Even if fascism is stripped of it's racism, fascism itself is still a fundamentally anti-worker, anti-leftist and wholly reactionary viewpoint. "How are fascists different from regular supporters of capitalism?" These fuckers are usually in the front lines of capitalism's dirty business, either strike breaking, immigrant bashing or otherwise. Valued and well-loved comrades have died by these people's hands, and no one should have to put up with it. There is precisely nothing worth learning by us by allowing these people a platform on this site.

I am totally in support of the no platform position: they would not allow us a platform, so why should we? The pathetic sensibilities of a couple of liberals who orgasm at the thought of roleplaying the "Internet Lawyer" are wholly useless.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Oh em gee. Now I'm a liberal. How will I survive with such blatantly false accusations?


GeneCosta provided the example of Mussolini, even though his regime DID come down heavily upon the Jews towards the end of his reign (see the "Manfiesto of Race" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto_of_Race) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto_of_Race)Actually, we already pointed out that Italy took a purely strategic role in racial matters. The fact it didn't treat Jews or racial minorities too poorly (in comparison to all countries at the time) for over ten years is evidence that amateur claims of fascism and racism being interlocked are wrong. Neo-fascism thrives on arguing that it is not racist.


These fuckers are usually in the front lines of capitalism's dirty business, either strike breaking, immigrant bashing or otherwise. Valued and well-loved comrades have died by these people's hands, and no one should have to put up with it.You can't put up with hearing their arguments? Why? Does it intimidate Leftists to defend themselves against an ideology no less ridiculous than anarcho-capitalism?


I am totally in support of the no platform position: they would not allow us a platform, so why should we? Right. Reciprocate the actions of a fascist. Sounds awfully familiar to the argument that we should beat them in the streets for just espousing their beliefs. Which is total crap, and it is not something I will associate with. People have the "right" to say whatever bad things they want without having their head smashed in. The fact some communists think it's okay to violently take down fascists (who are more often than not misguided youngsters - such actions only encourage their commitment to fascism) using the very same tactics they employ against us is pretty startling.

[Os Cangaceiros]

:lol:

This thread just keeps getting better.

[RaiseYourVoice]

Actually, we already pointed out that Italy took a purely strategic role in racial matters.
So? That doesn't make it any different from Nazism actually. Nazis ideology changes its good and bad races according to the economic needs of the country too.


You can't put up with hearing their arguments? Why? Does it intimidate Leftists to defend themselves against an ideology no less ridiculous than anarcho-capitalism?
IF you actually like really existed in real life antifa struggle you knew that we actually do or at least did debate with fascists a lot in our lives. Which is the simple reason we give them NO PLATFORM, since they are all scum.

But well this feels like just fight against some weird internet ideology that will never get any support in real life anyway so i won't bother to read more

[Socialistpenguin]

Oh em gee. Now I'm a liberal. How will I survive with such blatantly false accusations? Your falling over yourself to defend a fascist's right to speak. That's a pretty liberal thing to do, along the attributed lines of Voltaire's "I disagree with everything you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."


You can't put up with hearing their arguments? Why? Does it intimidate Leftists to defend themselves against an ideology no less ridiculous than anarcho-capitalism? I was referring to the political intimidation fascists use against leftists and have used since the 1920s.


Right. Reciprocate the actions of a fascist. Sounds awfully familiar to the argument that we should beat them in the streets for just espousing their beliefs. Which is total crap, and it is not something I will associate withWhat is wrong with this? Physical confrontation is a legitimate self defense against the fascists, it is preventative medicine. These people regularly assault and intimidate people of colour and political opponents, are we not allowed to defend ourselves?


People have the "right" to say whatever bad things they want without having their head smashed inWhat about people who shout "fire" in a crowded theatre? What about KKK followers who preach racial war in areas where the majority are an ethnic minority? What about those same followers who assault and lynch people? Do you think they have a right to speak without getting their head smashed in? What about the killers of James Byrd? Should they have unfettered "freedom of speech"?


The fact some communists think it's okay to violently take down fascists (who are more often than not misguided youngsters - such actions only encourage their commitment to fascism) using the very same tactics they employ against us is pretty startling.Alright then, how would you propose we combat fascism? Should we link arms and chant "We shall overcome"? Should we "turn the other cheek"?

[Invader Zim]

Unsupported by anything outside of your claims.



Half of your statement is just a reiteration of what I already said. However to denote that fascism is inherently full of hate is pretty much a logical fallacy. Every ideology is in opposition to another, which creates friction that boils down to hate. Mussolini's defense for fascism was no more hateful of races than say modern day conservatism. More authoritarian? Certainly, but I think it's reprehensible to ban people just because they're authoritarian.

This is the first time I've ever heard "tolerant" used as an insult in a leftist forum. Yeah, I believe in hearing everyone out, regardless of how I first perceive them. It's called not being ignorant. Perhaps some users here should invest less time in putting up a defense for a collective mentality with their straw man arguments and look into dissent.



Unsupported by anything outside of your claims.

I don't need to back up my claim, beyond citing your post; as everyone here, except you, knows just what fascism is. Some, no doubt, have even been on the receiving end of fascist thugs hatred.


Half of your statement is just a reiteration of what I already said.

And the fact that you fail to understand the implications of what you said is most worrying.


However to denote that fascism is inherently full of hate is pretty much a logical fallacy.

Not at all. the nationalistic nature of fascism is inherently hateful. To consider that the country of ones birth makes one biologically, culturally and socially superior is by its very nature hateful; as it assumes that other portions of humanity are inferior. That is why fascists actively work for the repression of other ethic groups and attack immigration and migrants. They also hate those on the political left, and I challenge you to name a single fascist state which hasn't either locked up or murdered its political opponents.


Mussolini's defense for fascism was no more hateful of races than say modern day conservatism.

But this is of course a lie. While Italian fascism was not inherently anti-semitic, it was fundermentally, and extremely, racist; as Mussolini's murderous policies in Africa proved.

[Honggweilo]

is it just me or should we use this topic to kick GeneCosta out of the CC for being a fascist apologist?

[Invader Zim]

is it just me or should we use this topic to kick GeneCosta out of the CC for being a fascist apologist?

Certainly not. While Demogorgan was also kicked out for that same, utterly spurious and intellectually dishonest, logic; there is absolutely no reason to set a trend by that one act of stupidity. We kick people for holding reactionary views, not for questioning if it is worth debating those with reactionary views. And what would come next, would we kick those who defend those who question whether reactionries shouldn't be debated? Or go further and kick those who defend those who defend those who question whether reactionries shouldn't be debated, ad-infinitum until only one person is left in the CC?

No, leave that kind of illogical bullshit to those revel in it.

[Honggweilo]

there is absolutely no reason to set a trend by that one act of stupiditylol, wasnt "a significant grasp of revolutionairy theory and class struggle" a criterum for CC membership?

[Invader Zim]

lol, wasnt "a significant grasp of revolutionairy theory and class struggle" a criterum for CC membership?

Ignorance is not the same thing as stupidity. But I was refering to the action of the CC, not Demogorgan.

[Wanted Man]

[/FONT][FONT=Arial]Actually, we already pointed out that Italy took a purely strategic role in racial matters. The fact it didn't treat Jews or racial minorities too poorly (in comparison to all countries at the time) for over ten years is evidence that amateur claims of fascism and racism being interlocked are wrong. Neo-fascism thrives on arguing that it is not racist.
Okay, so Mussolini's racism was opportunist and inconsistent with the German variety (if Nazi Germany wasn't fascist, what was it? Or did Nazism just exist in a vacuum?). And the Italian fascists didn't build death camps. And neo-fascists today disassociate from fascist regimes, at least in public (read Stormfront someday). Of course, that doesn't change anything about their practical positions, including their incitement of hatred against immigrants. And yes, this includes 'non-racist fascists' who 'just want to protect national identity'.

And what does their 'disassociation' matter anyway? They still work together with the most unsavoury kinds of nazis. I witnessed this just a week ago, when the 'soft nazi' (publicly denying to be nazis, but glorifying the SS and NSB collaborators on their website) NVU, the violent nazi gang Blood & Honour and the 'autonomous' 'anti-capitalist' nazi group NSA all demonstrated together in Zwolle. Other demonstrations often include the 'just nationalist' group Voorpost and others. More about that here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/nazi-demonstration-zwolle-t87982/index.html But I guess protests against fascism on a continent that has lived under fascism in the past are also irrelevant to your American libertarian sensibilities...

Of course, not every individual fascist hates Jews and wants to emulate Nazi Germany. But I previously mentioned the practical consequences of fascism. What I mean is that they necessitate the incitement of racial hatred by fascists. As such, fascists have consistently incited racial hatred, and fascism in power has consistently taken racist measures. 'Post-fascists' in Italian government are taking such measures as we speak.

However, all this information may not really be for you. Why look at the actual praxis of fascism today, when you can just whine about 'freedom of speech' on an internet forum (meanwhile, in the real world, cops are smashing up protests against the Republican convention)? All because of your own opinion that fascism and racism are unrelated. It is obvious, however, that RevLeft should never be a debating ground between us and fascists.

So put that up your pipe and smoke it. Or maybe you can play the libertarian envoy to Stormfront, and see what they say. Oh, and reading through this thread, I must say that I'm absolutely delighted that we have apparently decided to allow 'market anarchists' CC access at some point. Who would have thought that they would also be naive enough to defend fascists? Not me, oh no sirree.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

is it just me or should we use this topic to kick GeneCosta out of the CC for being a fascist apologist?

What the hell are you saying? Fascist apologist? That's downright disrespectful. Just because I have some grasp of fascism beyond irrational stereotypes does not mean I excuse its behavior. The sad thing about this thread is that others are trying to imply that relationship exists, knowing full well it's just a personal attack with no substance. I've proven myself to be quite anti-statist on Rev Left, and the very fact I dissent with your opinions and am suddenly called a "fascist apologist" makes me skeptical about the general maturity displayed on this forum.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

kay, so Mussolini's racism was opportunist and inconsistent with the German variety (if Nazi Germany wasn't fascist, what was it? Or did Nazism just exist in a vacuum?).Nazism and fascism are strongly independent of each other. That's pretty self-evident to anyone not blinded by senseless stereotypes. Germany operated around what we could all identify as a welfare state, whereas Italy adopted a corporate economy. The largest businessmen were literally playing around with the economy. More important to the discussion, Italy's ambitions were not racially based, but nationalist. This does imply some level of xenophobia, but I already pointed out neo-conservatives and even some right-libertarians share similar sentiments.


And the Italian fascists didn't build death camps.We could spin this around and play on the history of gulags and concentration camps used by the Soviet Union and North Korea. Do you really want to go down that road? With some exceptions, most self-declared socialist leaders have been particularly brutal to the opposition - even going so far as to attack your average capitalist apologist.

Should we ban Hoxhaists? Or anyone who adorns a portrait of Stalin in their avatar? (Before anyone attacks me for drawing this comparison, recall my previous posts where I actually defended Stalin from Robert Conquest's nonsensical statistics)


And neo-fascists today disassociate from fascist regimes, at least in public (read Stormfront someday). Of course, that doesn't change anything about their practical positions, including their incitement of hatred against immigrants. And yes, this includes 'non-racist fascists' who 'just want to protect national identity'.
I have read Stormfront, but thank you for presuming otherwise. Stormfront's constituency mostly includes libertarians, constitutionalists, and neo-nazis. Some blow their heads over the neo-fascist movement disassociating itself from the racist and sexist planks.


They still work together with the most unsavoury kinds of nazis. I witnessed this just a week ago, when the 'soft nazi' (publicly denying to be nazis, but glorifying the SS and NSB collaborators on their website) NVU, the violent nazi gang Blood & Honour and the 'autonomous' 'anti-capitalist' nazi group NSA all demonstrated together in Zwolle. Other demonstrations often include the 'just nationalist' group Voorpost and others. More about that here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/nazi-demon...982/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/nazi-demonstration-zwolle-t87982/index.html) But I guess protests against fascism on a continent that has lived under fascism in the past are also irrelevant to your American libertarian sensibilities...I was exceptionally amused by this paragraph including the phrase "American libertarian sensibilities." That statement almost leans on prejudice itself by begging the question of why my national identity is even relevant.

If you want to use personal examples, why not do a quick google search and find out all the non-racist fascist entities which exist? You're arguing at a straw man. I'd link to them myself, but TomK got hounded when he did something similar, so I'll leave the labor up to you.


Why look at the actual praxis of fascism today, when you can just whine about 'freedom of speech' on an internet forumThis is a ingenious statement. The only instance where I brought up "freedom of speech" was in reference to the remarks that we should severely wound, or kill, fascists in public for simply espousing their beliefs. Maybe this is just another stupid American principle, but getting attacked for words doesn't bode well for me. :rolleyes:


I must say that I'm absolutely delighted that we have apparently decided to allow 'market anarchists' CC access at some point. Who would have thought that they would also be naive enough to defend fascists? Not me, oh no sirree.Heh, market anarchist. That's a new one. I've now been called a market anarchist, collectivist, anarcho-communist, individualist, Stalinist, liberal, American libertarian, and fascist. Sweet. :thumbup:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

This is all going around in a circle. If anyone is interested in an honest conversation, you know where to PM me. I suspect personal attacks will continue after this point, but I'm tired and this thread bores me.

Your local market anarcho-fascist American libertarian liberal friend:

- Gene

[Socialistpenguin]

This is all going around in a circle. If anyone is interested in an honest conversation, you know where to PM me. I suspect personal attacks will continue after this point, but I'm tired and this thread bores me.

Your local market anarcho-fascist American libertarian liberal friend:

- Gene

Hang on a minute, this thread is basically trolling. You start a thread about a controversial subject, you get a bit of flak over said opinions, then you decide to just throw in the towel under the pretence that those looking for "honest discussion" should personally PM you. How're the opinions stated by members here any less honest than the one you espoused at the start of the this thread? Did you not think that a discussion on such an important subject would not involve people who disagree with you?

And you still haven't answered my question. How do you propose that we combat fascism effectively?

[OI OI OI]

Gene has a point , I would agree with having fascists in the OI section.

I will add this if it is not already added.

Neo-nazis or neo-fascists are just a cult. They shave their heads , tattoo a swastiga on their ass and hang around with skinhead friends, listening to particular music and wearing particular clothes.
Or we have the other type of fascists which are nationalists, racists, sexists and anti-communists.

But the thing is that all of them have no ideology. Fascism is just a metamorphosis which is necessary for a capitalist "democracy" to take in order to save private property in times of crisis.

I think we should allow in OI advocates of fascism because most of the time they are confused ignorants.
We should not make them feel special by not allowing them to bve here.
We should not make them feel that we are afraid of them.
Let them post in OI and have their arguments smashed:)

PS: If someone replies keep in mind I might not reply as I do oftenly because school started and I have no time.
Also don't dare call me a fascist apologist like you did with GeneCosta.
I am certainly not but I dont think that under these material conditions fascism is a threat.

[chimx]

Not at all. the nationalistic nature of fascism is inherently hateful. To consider that the country of ones birth makes one biologically, culturally and socially superior is by its very nature hateful; as it assumes that other portions of humanity are inferior.

Save for biological perhaps, which is not an inherent tenet of fascist nationalism, this is true of almost all nationalists and is not at all limited to fascism -- yet we don't ban other types of nationalists here.


That is why fascists actively work for the repression of other ethic groups and attack immigration and migrants.

Again, we are back to praxis rather than ideology, as I mentioned on the previous page.


They also hate those on the political left, and I challenge you to name a single fascist state which hasn't either locked up or murdered its political opponents.

We have plenty of Hoxhaists and such that supported the imprisonment and murder or leftists under Stalin's rule. In fact we have another thread going right now in here discussing the political assassination of Trotsky. Should we ban all Hoxhaists, Trotskyists, anarchists also?

[chimx]

We should not make them feel special by not allowing them to bve here.
We should not make them feel that we are afraid of them.

^^truth

banning fascists benefits fascism

[trivas7]

I think it merely reflects a strategy that many of us adopt, which is a no platform for fascists policy.
Indeed. :thumbup:

Now can anyone explain the ban on anarcho-primitivists (http://greenanarchy.org)? I've read some of their zines, they are often articulate dissenters of capitalism IMO, and my sense is that they represent a sizeable number of self-identified anarchists (at least in USA).

[Dimentio]

A lot of fascists also dislike capitalism very much. But they do it in the same way as the anarcho-primmies are doing it, because capitalism is too "progressive for them".

As why we are banning fascists, one important reason is that a lot of fascists are violent thugs who try to silence dissenters physically.

[chimx]

As why we are banning fascists, one important reason is that a lot of fascists are violent thugs who try to silence dissenters physically.

So it is not about fascist ideology so much as it is about contemporary trends in fascist praxis?

[Dean]

Now can anyone explain the ban on anarcho-primitivists (http://greenanarchy.org)? I've read some of their zines, they are often articulate dissenters of capitalism IMO, and my sense is that they represent a sizeable number of self-identified anarchists (at least in USA).

Technocratic influence.

[The Author]

Proposing some kind of "platform" for fascists on this forum is the worst idea I have ever seen. It smacks of liberalism, despite claims to the contrary. We must not give fascists a chance to spread their disinformation and lure people to the wrong side. If the circumstances were reversed, and this was a fascist forum (or real life in general, don't forget about that), the fascists certainly wouldn't give us the right to speak. The day that fascists are allowed to speak on this forum is the day that I leave. Tolerating sectarianism is one thing. But I sure as hell won't accept having to confront fascists on this board because of some phony claim that it will "spur the development of the forums."

[chimx]

I'm not arguing that it will help the development of the forums, just that fascism as an ideology is not inherently worse that capitalism, making the policy inconsist3nt.

[Dimentio]

Technocratic influence.

*sighs*

This is an issue for a new thread in AD. My comment is that Vanguard1917 is the anti-primmie flagship, and he's not a technocrat.

[Dr Mindbender]

Technocratic influence.

bollocks. Primitivism is a reactionary ideology since they oppose science and human progress. Since we restrict all other reactionary ideaologies its only fair for the sake of consistency.

[#FF0000]

I'm not arguing that it will help the development of the forums, just that fascism as an ideology is not inherently worse that capitalism, making the policy inconsist3nt.

This^^

However, I'm worried that if we were to do this, OI would just become flooded with fascists.

[chimx]

I'm sure Malte would veto any such vote even if it did have broader support. My concern is keeping trolls off the site.

[Wanted Man]

This is all going around in a circle. If anyone is interested in an honest conversation, you know where to PM me. I suspect personal attacks will continue after this point, but I'm tired and this thread bores me.

Your local market anarcho-fascist American libertarian liberal friend:

- Gene


Good, then someone can close this ignorance.

[chimx]

I would still appreciate a response to my questions I made back on page 2.

[Hit The North]

Well from the bulk of responses, I'm assuming many of you are using Nazism and Fascism interchangeably. If by Fascism you really mean Nazism, I can understand your thinking. The two converged indissolubly. It's like making a distinction between HIV and AIDS. In real terms there is none.


So again, my question is, what specifically about the core values of fascism warrant a no-platform policy on this website? Even under the early years of Mussolini, the corporatist strategy meant the extinguishing of independent working class organisation and the brutal persecution of trade unionists, communists and anarchists. So work it out for yourself!


So again, it is about contemporary political praxis, not the ideology itself, that warrants banning?
This question makes no sense given that the ideology is a part of the praxis.


Let me ask a hypothetical. Would you support the "no platform" policy, either here or in real life, for a person that identified with early Mussolini Fascism, in the sense that s/he was largely indifferent to race and didn't advocate ethnic violence or repression? Yes, for the reason given above.

[Invader Zim]

Save for biological perhaps, which is not an inherent tenet of fascist nationalism, this is true of almost all nationalists and is not at all limited to fascism -- yet we don't ban other types of nationalists here.



Again, we are back to praxis rather than ideology, as I mentioned on the previous page.



We have plenty of Hoxhaists and such that supported the imprisonment and murder or leftists under Stalin's rule. In fact we have another thread going right now in here discussing the political assassination of Trotsky. Should we ban all Hoxhaists, Trotskyists, anarchists also?


Save for biological perhaps, which is not an inherent tenet of fascist nationalism, People often claim this to when they observe the non anti-semitic nature of Italian fascism. It is a misconception, and one I must confess to once sharing; fascists do hold the view that those of other races are biologically inferior. While Italian fascism certainly wasn't rabidly anti-semitic like Nazism, it most certainly was overtly racist when it came to its African conquests. Re-introducing slavery, murdering thousands, etc.


this is true of almost all nationalists and is not at all limited to fascismThis is of course not true either. Fascism is distinct as a result of its very negative hyper-nationalism.


Again, we are back to praxis rather than ideology, as I mentioned on the previous page.Well it was as wrong on the previous page as it is here; and even the most superficial investigation of the history of fascism shows. Racism is inherent to the ideology of fascism. And even if it weren't and was, as you claim, just practise rather than ideology, it makes no difference.


We have plenty of Hoxhaists and such that supported the imprisonment and murder or leftists under Stalin's rule.While there certainly are a few points of similarity in some cases, to compare the more authoritarian members of this board to fascists is intellectually dishonest. As I am sure you are aware.

[chimx]

Even under the early years of Mussolini, the corporatist strategy meant the extinguishing of independent working class organisation and the brutal persecution of trade unionists, communists and anarchists. So work it out for yourself!

Of course, and capitalists equally support the strategy of persecuting labor organizations. We've had restricted members defend the suppression of and persecution of unionists in the past, but because they identified with a more orthodox capitalism they weren't banned? Again, this strikes me as inconsistent.


People often claim this to when they observe the non anti-semitic nature of Italian fascism. It is a misconception, and one I must confess to once sharing; fascists do hold the view that those of other races are biologically inferior. While Italian fascism certainly wasn't rabidly anti-semitic like Nazism, it most certainly was overtly racist when it came to its African conquests. Re-introducing slavery, murdering thousands, etc.

I'm not extremely well-read on the history of Italian fascism, but from what I have read I was under the impression that Mussolini's African conquests were more about an imperialist agenda that racial suppression.

In fact, in attempts to denationalize the African populations, children that were born of an African mother but of an Italian father were recognized as being fully Italian. The fact that fascist Italy was more than willing to accept these ethnically mixed children into what Italy defined as "the nation" would lead me to believe that it was less about "biological superiority" and more about nationalism and imperialism.

If you have evidence the contrary though, I would like to hear it.


Fascism is distinct as a result of its very negative hyper-nationalism.

So it is the degree of nationalism that warrants banning over restriction?


And even if it weren't and was, as you claim, just practise rather than ideology, it makes no difference.

Why does it make no difference? If this was the case, isn't there the possibility that people that uphold the ideology could advocate different political practices?


While there certainly are a few points of similarity in some cases, to compare the more authoritarian members of this board to fascists is intellectually dishonest. As I am sure you are aware.

I don't mean to compare them to fascists, just point out that some of the reasons that were given as justification for banning are allowed to exist in the membership so long as it is under the banner of communism. You of all people should know the frustration of dealing with people like Intelligitimate whose denials of Stalin's mass ethnic cleansing were eerily similar to those that deny the holocaust. When you get them into a corner by showing so much evidence the replies are the same: "bourgeois media conspiracy" or "Jewish media conspiracy".

And of course others here have fully defended the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of people in the USSR -- not to mention the obvious problems of the dekulakization campaigns, the imprisonment of political dissenters, etc. etc.

So no, in terms of ideology I don't see a big difference in this particular facet. What makes them distinct is their political praxis.

[#FF0000]

People often claim this to when they observe the non anti-semitic nature of Italian fascism. It is a misconception, and one I must confess to once sharing; fascists do hold the view that those of other races are biologically inferior. While Italian fascism certainly wasn't rabidly anti-semitic like Nazism, it most certainly was overtly racist when it came to its African conquests. Re-introducing slavery, murdering thousands, etc.


I struggle to think of any nation that hasn't used racism as a tool to promote a war in some way.

[Hit The North]

Of course, and capitalists equally support the strategy of persecuting labor organizations.

Let's not fall into the trap of seeing capitalism and fascism as the same. In a normal functioning bourgeois democracy, independent trade unions are allowed to exist and we are not sent to prison for our political beliefs.

[chimx]

In a normal functioning bourgeois democracy, independent trade unions are allowed to exist

That is only so because of gains made by trade unions engaged in class struggle. For most of the history of trade unions, they were brutally suppressed and their members were imprisoned. This is often the case in developing capitalist democracy's today. For example, look at the arrest of KCTU union leaders in Korea. It is not normal for capitalism to allow trade unions, it only occurs because we have fought and won the right to organize.

[Hit The North]

Nonetheless, no respectable bourgeois could sustain a veneer of adherence to democracy by arguing for the banning of trade unions and imprisonment of socialists. It is also "normal" for bourgeois capitalism to have multi-party, representative democracy (at least the illusiuon of it).

I think you need to understand that history moves on. Just as there is no viable pre-Nazi fascist model, there is also no way the bourgeoisie could abolish the democratic rights of workers without resorting to fascism itself. Otherwise there would be no role for the fascists themselves who are precisely the most reactionary wing of bourgeois society, ready to force through a degree of oppression that "normal bourgeoisie" institutions are incapable of enforcing.

This has been its historic task and this is why we oppose them tooth and nail whether they call themselves blackshirts or brownshirts.

[black magick hustla]

"democratic" capitalists have more blood in their hands than fascists. The whole anti-fascism thing is ridicolous, and today it is the democratic gangs that terrorize more immigrants, not fascists.

fascists may be angrier but seriously, you people are ridicolous.

[Sam_b]

What is it about the ICC members on here that are always so keen to jump to the notion that fascism isn't a problem?

I think there are a plethora of examples that prove that this position is simply not the case.

[black magick hustla]

There are no "plethora" of examples - either they are fringe electoral elements like the BNP or small gangs of violent skinheads. Normal non-political gangs murder more immigrants and working class members than fascist ones.

Its just a historical ceremony.

[Sam_b]

You miss the point. I'm not interested if you think that other groups are 'worse' than fascists, i'm more interested if yourself and your organisation don't see fascism as a threat at all.

Do you share the same position as (I belive it was) Devrim, who stated that it only becomes a threat once it has gained some sort of overall power?

[Devrim]

Do you share the same position as (I believe it was) Devrim, who stated that it only becomes a threat once it has gained some sort of overall power?

That isn't what I said. I replied to what I consider to be exaggerations about the danger of them coming to power by saying that they weren't likely to. If you want to see some of the hype that has been generated, look at the anti-fascist forum. The other day I read that the BNP usually get over 20% in elections (this is untrue in case anyone believes it), and a couple of weeks ago somebody was talking about them 'regularly murdering, raping, and torturing left wing militants' (also untrue).

People have started to believe their own propaganda. It needs saying that the BNP is a small party, which has very little chance of coming to power, and the closer it got to any power, the more it would act like the other bourgoies parties.

I don't believe the BNP is more of a threat than the mainstream bourgoies parties. We don't see fascism as a particular threat.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

We don't see fascism as a particular threat.

Devrim

This.

[Holden Caulfield]

as a country with no main workers party, and a fascist party playing at leftist and workist politics i see fascists as a massive threat, eating up the voters who are disenfranchised from the 'capitalist' state who should be supporting socialism,

we cannot just disregard them because they are wrong,

[Black Dagger]

This.

Surely the 'fascist threat' is relative to where people live?

[black magick hustla]

Surely the 'fascist threat' is relative to where people live?

I don't get how is it a bigger threat than the real damage the bourgeois state already makes. I had this discussion with a bunch of antifas with my area. Democratic forces are the worst - they manage to have the most blood in their hands and still harp on democratic ideals.

People here are not interested in the threat fascist gangs pose. Why aren't reds fighting lumpen run out of the mill gangs that are responsable for more of the violence against workers? would you beat up your coworker for voting for the Democratic Party, when the democratic party is full of warhawks ready to send workers to rip the stomachs of other workers. Why don't you beat up Republicans who are hellbent on closing the borders and booting out illegal immigrants? A few days ago, AFL-CLO helped on sending state-gangs to terrorize some immigrants working in a certain factory. Are you going to stomp on unionized workers?

The whole premise is really stupid, and its nothing more than feel-good politics. Makes people believe they are active because they went to counter a march of some shitty group that most people think are loons anyway.

[Black Dagger]

Things aren't that cut and dry. I agree that most of the time the 'bourgeois state' is probably a greater threat than fascists, in most places, but conditions are relative. The 'threat' (from the state or right-wing militants) is not the same everywhere at any given time so it makes sense for people to organise around issues that are important for them, where they're living - as they arise. From that POV i think it is quite disrespectful to dismiss peoples activity as useless, a waste of time, or 'lifestyle-ism' ('feel good politics'?) when there are times and places where antifa etc. activity is definately needed, or vital - such as when there has been violence or threats of violence.

Moved to advanced discussion.

[Devrim]

Things aren't that cut and dry. I agree that most of the time the 'bourgeois state' is probably a greater threat than fascists, in most places, but conditions are relative.

Is the far right a greater threat in any of the countries from which their are regular posters here? Most of the talk about fascists is about the UK BNP. Would you put them in that category?


The 'threat' (from the state or right-wing militants) is not the same everywhere at any given time so it makes sense for people to organise around issues that are important for them, where they're living - as they arise.

We are not saying that their should be no activity to defend things against right wing militants. We are saying that they are not the main let alone only threat.


From that POV i think it is quite disrespectful to dismiss peoples activity as useless, a waste of time, or 'lifestyle-ism' ('feel good politics'?) when there are times and places where antifa etc. activity is definately needed, or vital - such as when there has been violence or threats of violence.

I think that it is worse than useless. I think that it drags workers into bourgeois politics.

Devrim

[RaiseYourVoice]

The threat to what? The threat to my personal political work is the fascists. They are the tool of the ruling class to attack the organised working class if the ruling class can't itself. For example we had attacks on one of our local branches by fascists in one city. That is something the police can't do, they can only raid and search which is certainly intimidating but not actually dangerous.

To say the fascists aren't a threat but the capitalists are is stupid. The fascists have a certain role in this society. At the moment that is in my country, to attack us on the streets, to intimidate us and to help shifting the anger coming from daily class war from anti-capitalism to racism.

Also fascists are used by conservatives to open topics for discussion which "democratic" partys couldnt for the sake of political correctness.

Thus i agree fighting fascism shouldn't be all you do or even have the main focus. (for informations sake, my main focus is anti-mil) But I know only few antifa groups who aren't also anti-capitalist.

Last but not least joining the anti-fascist struggle can be a means to recruit new people. Those kids who go on the streets against the fascists already have a progressive outlook, you just have to widen their view to the racism and oppression in this system and radicalize them. Leaving the anitfa struggle to "democratic" forces would in my country mean even more of the defeat of the working class struggle.

(seriously my english gets worse every day so if you didn't understand something please ask.)

[Black Dagger]

Is the far right a greater threat [than the state] in any of the countries from which their are regular posters here?

Probably not, but i'm not really in position to talk authoritatively about the situation in a country i don't live in so...



Most of the talk about fascists is about the UK BNP. Would you put them in that category?

Which category? As a 'threat'? If its the former then see above.


We are not saying that their should be no activity to defend things against right wing militants. We are saying that they are not the main let alone only threat.

Ok, but no one is saying they're the 'only' threat. And i doubt most of the people you're talking about would even consider fascists the 'main' threat either. People have been saying that they think antifa stuff is 'important' (which is up for debate), but i think you're exaggerating their position.


I think that it is worse than useless. I think that it drags workers into bourgeois politics.

What is? You've just stated:


We are not saying that their should be no activity to defend things against right wing militants

But now you've labelled such activity 'useless'? :confused:

So are you saying that all antifa activity is 'useless' or some? If it's the former then 'huh'? If it's the latter, which activities are talking about specifically? And why are they useless?

[Devrim]

Communist have to be able to defend their own meetings and workers' meetings.

I wouldn't equate this to anti-fascist activity. They also have to do this against whichever forces attack them.

I don't believe that this is what 'anti-fascist' activity is. I believe that anti-fascist activity has two problems.

1) It has a tendency to descend to the level of gang warfare with no connection to the working class at all.

2) It has a political tendency to say that the fascists are the worst threat, thus tying workers to the defence of the state (even in its more 'radical' forms).

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

The bordigists in the early 20s protected their meetings against fascists gangsters with armed patrols. Similarly, militants of bilan were armed when selling the press (Although the latter had probably little to do with fascists).

This is however, not the same as silly antifa. frothing your mouth at a groop of 20-30 nationalist loonies in a demo is not the same as protecting communist meetings from outside threats.

[Hit The North]

It's quite ironic that this thread was moved to Advanced Discussion just at the point when it got derailed by the ICC.

The adherent(s) of the view that we can distinguish between greater and lesser evil brands of fascism have gone very quiet.

[Holden Caulfield]

This is however, not the same as silly antifa. frothing your mouth at a groop of 20-30 nationalist loonies in a demo is not the same as protecting communist meetings from outside threats.
erm i think you should read about 'silly antifa' on their own website they say that left wing gigs and events will be protected by antifascists for the safety of those attending,

also Class War (i dont agree with them but fuck it they were part of those who made antifa) have a well documented case of coming to the aid of a lefty gig that was crashed by 'British Movement' thugs (who couldnt get away fast enough when it wasnt men vs. kids anymore)

what do you think of 'The Battle of Cable Street' Marmot?

[chimx]

The adherent(s) of the view that we can distinguish between greater and lesser evil brands of fascism have gone very quiet.

I made my point, and nobody offered a rebuttal.

I also agree with the left commies that anti-fascism is generally a waste of time. I may part ways with this line of thinking of fascism was actually a palpable thread, but it isn't. It's just a fringe movement that has no popular support. People involve themselves with it to pretend to be active or because of communisms historical battles with fascism in the 20th century (back when it did actually constitute a thread)

[Dr Mindbender]

What i want to know currently, what is the policy on fascist apologists?

Are they restricted?

[chimx]

I would hope so.

[Bilan]

(back when it did actually constitute a thread)

Mate, you live in America, and you're being honest here?
Fascism poses a threat in America for two reasons:

1/ It's growing
2/ It's unchallenged, because communists operate like dip shits and don't actually do anything (prove me wrong, please)

And also, are you choosing not to pay attention to global events on this? Russia? Eastern Europe (generally)?

[Bilan]

1) It has a tendency to descend to the level of gang warfare with no connection to the working class at all.

I don't think thats a tendency of Anti-fascism, but an approach to anti-fascism which can, in some instances, have problems. Ignoring it poses a far greater threat than "gang warfare" approaches.
I am of the persuasion that fascism, in all forms, must be crushed; on the streets, in our workplaces, and in our communities. It's not a main priority, of course; the main objective is our attack and the destruction of capitalism. But it needs to play a part in our defence and growth.

[black magick hustla]

I don't think thats a tendency of Anti-fascism, but an approach to anti-fascism which can, in some instances, have problems. Ignoring it poses a far greater threat than "gang warfare" approaches.
I am of the persuasion that fascism, in all forms, must be crushed; on the streets, in our workplaces, and in our communities. It's not a main priority, of course; the main objective is our attack and the destruction of capitalism. But it needs to play a part in our defence and growth.

Why does ignoring it poses a greater threat?

why does it demand some sort of special attention when there are much more worse things. I still dont get it.

[Black Dagger]

I really don't understand we're going coming from Marmot; you make it seem like antifa is this massive drain of resources/time/people - like it's the most common communist activity going and the people that are involved in it just devote all their time to antifa stuff and nothing else. Where i live at least, it's not like that at all.

[black magick hustla]

I really don't understand we're going coming from Marmot; you make it seem like antifa is this massive drain of resources/time/people - like it's the most common communist activity going and the people that are involved in it just devote all their time to antifa stuff and nothing else. Where i live at least, it's not like that at all.

Well its not just that, isn't it?

i mean, breaking the window of some military building is dumb as hell, but doesn't requires a lot of people or resources. The thing is the mentality behind such actions. If people are willing to beat up fascists instead of their friendly coworker who happens to vote for an imperialist party, it means that, like the centrists of the 20s and 30s, they are willing to choose democracy over fascism and tie workers to the defense of the democratic state against fascism. they dont view it like that, but i think this is the case with most antifas. and besides, there are a lot of folk who base their politics on just antifascism, just hang over the antifascist board and youll see what i mean.

[Black Dagger]

'Democracy' - the state, its policies and functions are an 'enemy' (like fascists) - but choosing to attack fascists instead of people who vote for major political parties is not an endorsement of the latter (which is something you really need to substantiate).

Voting is not the same as dropping bombs - imperialist governments don't consult the people who voted for them before they go to war. Moreover, where i live voting is compulsory, the vast majority of people (including working class folk) vote for major (i.e. imperialist) political parties.

The point is, self-identifying fascists are politically conscious (and often active) reactionaries - so violence may be needed in self-defence - voters however may very well be politically apathetic and pose no immediate threat to anyone so violence is unnecessary.


and besides, there are a lot of folk who base their politics on just antifascism, just hang over the antifascist board and youll see what i mean.

No doubt there are anti-fascists that are guilty of doing everything you've suggested here, but we're not going about specific groups or people that do antifa work but antifa work generally - it's role (if any), purpose etc. There are a lot of useless communists (anarchist or otherwise) who base their politics on inane shit - but that's not a fair criticism of the work communists do generally, the outlook of most communists etc.

[Zurdito]

GeneCosta, I normally enjoy reading your posts, but what the fuck?

A fascist necessarilly believes in the violent crushing of the workign class movement and organises for that aim.

this is the stupidest thread I have ever read on revleft.

giving a platform to fascism on the forum would not be the same as inviting libertarans, liberals or conservatives to OI to debate us. it would be giving resources over for the use of a group whose objective is to co-ordinate to have "us" (a very broad us that I don't use in any other context) wiped out.

no I don't support popular fronts against fascism btw. I don't support alling for the state to repress them, I support Trotsky's line of a working class solution.

However no-platform is completely necessary.

[black magick hustla]

Democracy' - the state, its policies and functions are an 'enemy' (like fascists) - but choosing to attack fascists instead of people who vote for major political parties is not an endorsement of the latter (which is something you really need to substantiate).

Voting is not the same as dropping bombs - imperialist governments don't consult the people who voted for them before they go to war. Moreover, where i live voting is compulsory, the vast majority of people (including working class folk) vote for major (i.e. imperialist) politicalparties.
Most fascists are not violent. They may endorse violent policies, but not all fascists shave their heads and run around in gangs. I doubt the mayority of the electorate of the BNP has punched anyone in their lives. The mayority of americans a few years ago consciously supported imperialist war in iraq. I am not going to beat up every southern neocon though.

Also, maybe normal voters are not as active and conscious. However, for example in the US- what about the people who campaign for Mccain. Some people in campus campaign for him. Should I punch their lights out?

Even with the little fascist gangs, I doubt they are more dangerous and violent than normal out of the mill gangsters. If antifa was really preocuppied by the danger fascist gangsters pose, they would target instead other more violent groups.

I dont think in their rhetoric antifas consciously endorse the democratic state, but I do think they find fascism more of a threat to the point that they prioritize it over the capitalist state. If antifas found the democratic state more dangerous, they would atleast smash and sabotage campaigners for imperialist parties. I think historically antifascism has showed a tendency, even with anarchos, of forming fronts with democratic elements.



The point is, self-identifying fascists are politically conscious (and often active) reactionaries - so violence may be needed in self-defence - voters however may very well be politically apathetic and pose no immediate threat to anyone so violence is unnecessary.{/Quote]

One of my very good friends here at the US wants to join the army after college. He genuinely is a very nice guy. He is not racist or anything, he is white and hangs around with me and has very progressive views on immigration. However he thinks americans are bringing democracy to iraqis. I like him a lot, should I punch his lights out? (Well, not that it matters though lol, I am pretty big and built but he plays american football and he is a monster and he prolly could snap my neck)



[Quote]No doubt there are anti-fascists that are guilty of doing everything you've suggested here, but we're not going about specific groups or people that do antifa work but antifa work generally - it's role (if any), purpose etc. There are a lot of useless communists (anarchist or otherwise) who base their politics on inane shit - but that's not a fair criticism of the work communists do generally, the outlook of most communists etc.

i think antifa today- atleast in europe- is based mostly of people with theirpolitics almost exclusively based on antifa

[Zurdito]

Let me ask a hypothetical. Would you support the "no platform" policy, either here or in real life, for a person that identified with early Mussolini Fascism, in the sense that s/he was largely indifferent to race and didn't advocate ethnic violence or repression?

yes he did advocate repression fromt he beginning ffs, he advocated the violent crushing of the labour movement and the left and anyone with a classist orientation, and he carried it out with his supporters even before getting into power, and you as an active leftist would have experienced that first hand if you'de been there at the time.

Still want to give those benign "corproatists" with their economic regulation, mass base and non-explicitly-racist fascism a platform on the board?

I have posted this many times, but it should be read, whatever people think of Trotsky:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm

[Devrim]

I don't think thats a tendency of Anti-fascism, but an approach to anti-fascism which can, in some instances, have problems.

It happened in this country at the end of the seventies, start of the eighties. At the worst point there were an average of 30 political murders a day in Istanbul alone.

And it was a gang war with two gangs killing each other and virtually no involvement from the class as a whole.

When you look at Eastern Europe today, you see (although on a much lower scale) the same tendency.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Still want to give those benign "corproatists" with their economic regulation, mass base and non-explicitly-racist fascism a platform on the board?

I would just like to make it clear that I don't.

Devrim

[Zurdito]

ok

personally I didn't think you did, it was more to Gene and chimx than anyone (and maybe marmot, I'm not sure of his position).

[Holden Caulfield]

@ Marmot


they are willing to choose democracy over fascism and tie workers to the defense of the democratic state against fascism.

the majority of antifa uk are anarchists, and this is mentioned a few times in the founding statement


they dont view it like that, but i think this is the case with most antifas. and besides, there are a lot of folk who base their politics on just antifascism, just hang over the antifascist board and youll see what i mean.

that is again unsupported, what do you even mean by that?


i think antifa today- atleast in europe- is based mostly of people with theirpolitics almost exclusively based on antifa

dont talk such baseless shit,

ive PMed you on the last point as well

[Edelweiss]

Communist have to be able to defend their own meetings and workers' meetings.

Of course they have to. But you acknowledging this, is showing how flawed and incostitent your/the ICC's line on this is. Self-defense against the fascist does not begin with waiting at your meeting for the fascists to come and beat you up like a lamb on the shambles. Self-defense against the fascists does mean to deal with the fascist problem at it's roots, and to get rid of it entirely or to keep it as small as possible. To accomplish this, there is no other way than the various forms of Antifa work, may it be militant, propagandistic, educational or just doing research work about the fascist structures in your area and publically exposing it and the persons involved.

Does anti-fascist work sometimes, effectively mean to defend the bourgeois state against the fascists? Yes, maybe. But we live here and now, and there is no practicable alternative to it, when it's about defending against the fascist scum. I mean, what do you expect us to do when German fascists are burning down a house with Turkish immigrants like they did before, with numerous deads? In Germany still people getting murdered by fascist regularly. Are you seriously suggesting to just ignore that, for the sake of some highly theoretical stance, or because it could result in "gang warfare"? Are you seriously suggesting to sit and wait for another fascist government to come? Granted, that is not very likely at the moment, but that is just because of successful anti-fascist struggle within the last decades.

Also, most German Antifa groups, do not only limit their actions to anti-fascist work, but are active in class struggle on many other levels. The Antifa movement is one of the few communist/anarchist youth movements which are actually still appealing, unlike the many sectarian, communist mini-groups.

[Devrim]

I mean, what do you expect us to do when German fascists are burning down a house with Turkish immigrants like they did before, with numerous deads? In Germany still people getting murdered by fascist regularly.

Did fascists do it? Do you think that fascists are responsible for all racist violence? Do you think that Antifa activity stops this violence?

Also how regularly, Malte?

Devrim

[Invader Zim]

Did fascists do it? Do you think that fascists are responsible for all racist violence? Do you think that Antifa activity stops this violence?

Also how regularly, Malte?

Devrim

Certainly not all, but is the fact that there is no single way of a dealing with a problem a good reason not to address with an important element of that problem?

[Edelweiss]

Did fascists do it?

Yes, they did. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solingen_arson_attack_of_1993)


Do you think that Antifa activity stops this violence?

Indeed, I think so. It can at least decearse that violence. For example, in the town where I live, fascist rarely dare to act openly, and fascist violence is very limited. This is, I think, also due to the good Antifa work here during the last couple of years.

In towns nearby, where there is a weaker Antifa due to the anti-German/anti-imp split, the fascists are acting much more militant and fascist violence is a lot more common. In Dortmund a punk has been murdered some years ago. In another town the fascists did attack a leftist youth center and it's visitors with knifes and baseball belts just a couple of weeks ago.

I think there is a direct connection between the degree of fascist violence and Antifa work.


Also how regularly, Malte?

Since the German unification at least 136 people have been murdered by fascists, or by people driven by racist motives. And this are statistics of 2006. It's certainly more now. Souce (http://archiv.mut-gegen-rechte-gewalt.de/artikel.php?id=82&kat=82&artikelid=2316)

[Holden Caulfield]

^ in regards to what Malte has said antifa work is not to beat up fascists as some kind of moral imperitive or to give them what they deserve, but do let them know that cannot openly go around being intolerant or spread their ideals to halt their progression and to push them off the streets,

in Pollock in Glasgow not too long ago the BNP tried to hold a meeting, a few pricks and a few easily influenced and rebellious kids turned up, so did the local anti-fascist socialists and told the kids to go home for their own safety and to think about what they are actually doing, and told the BNP if they ever came back to the estate again they would get the living shit kicked out of them,

[Devrim]

[/URL]Since the German unification at least 136 people have been murdered by fascists, or by people driven by racist motives. And this are statistics of 2006. It's certainly more now. [URL="http://archiv.mut-gegen-rechte-gewalt.de/artikel.php?id=82&kat=82&artikelid=2316"]Souce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solingen_arson_attack_of_1993)

But I am not saying that there isn't racist violence in society. There obviously is. What I was questioning was how much of it comes from actual fascists. Your source proves nothing here.

Indeed in the last round of Turkish nationalist/anti-Kurdish sentiment here it wasn't driven so much by the actual fascists as by the trade unions, and the Social democrats.

Racism can come from all of the bourgeois parties, and the main bourgeois parties are responsible (since 1945) for implementing far more racist measures than the fascists.


Indeed, I think so. It can at least decearse that violence. For example, in the town where I live, fascist rarely dare to act openly, and fascist violence is very limited. This is, I think, also due to the good Antifa work here during the last couple of years.

In towns nearby, where there is a weaker Antifa due to the anti-German/anti-imp split, the fascists are acting much more militant and fascist violence is a lot more common. In Dortmund a punk has been murdered some years ago. In another town the fascists did attack a leftist youth center and it's visitors with knifes and baseball belts just a couple of weeks ago.

I think there is a direct connection between the degree of fascist violence and Antifa work.

It is difficult to judge. Driving them underground could turn them towards burning down houses.


in Pollock in Glasgow not too long ago the BNP tried to hold a meeting, a few pricks and a few easily influenced and rebellious kids turned up, so did the local anti-fascist socialists and told the kids to go home for their own safety and to think about what they are actually doing, and told the BNP if they ever came back to the estate again they would get the living shit kicked out of them,

This is the great danger people keep telling us about.

Devrim

[Holden Caulfield]

This is the great danger people keep telling us about.

in glasgow.. yeah, because they dont have a chance to set up, anti-fascists wouldn't give them the chance to act how they do in other places

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Devrim
This is the great danger people keep telling us about.Every good gardener knows that if you allow the weeds to get a foothold in the garden, you store up problems for the future.

Every good communist should understand the same about fascism.

Last weekend in Rotherham, we held a Love Music, Hate Racism carnival which attracted over four thousand young (and not so young) people. The day was a mix of political speeches, workshops, hip hop and indie music. Rotherham has two BNP councilors who were elected in the last elections. Since their election, the local Asian community has reported an increase in racist attacks. This isn't surprising; it usually happens in areas where the fascists feel confident of support.

A review of the event can be found here: http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=15916

It's our duty to educate people about the realities of fascism. Last weekend was a small contribution to that effort.

[black magick hustla]

Every good gardener knows that if you allow the weeds to get a foothold in the garden, you store up problems for the future.

arent you in your middle ages? so you are saying you, a middle aged man, is willing to stomp on some disturbingly stupid kids because they raise the flag of the BNP?

[Mujer Libre]

arent you in your middle ages? so you are saying you, a middle aged man, is willing to stomp on some disturbingly stupid kids because they raise the flag of the BNP?
Um, that statement had absolutely nothing to do with age, and everything to do with not letting a small fascist movement become any larger or more brazen.

[Hit The North]

arent you in your middle ages? so you are saying you, a middle aged man, is willing to stomp on some disturbingly stupid kids because they raise the flag of the BNP?

Your insinuation that the BNP is only comprised of "stupid kids" demonstrates that your ignorance precludes you from participating in this advanced discussion.


See many kids here:
http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/images/BNP_GriffinMinders.gif


or here:
http://www.graphicmail.co.uk/uk_members/3900/ftp/Bullets/bnp.jpg

:rolleyes:

[Devrim]

Yet the second picture isn't even a picture of the BNP. It is a picture of the 'Nationalist Alliance' (which does consist of ex-BNP members).

My point is how can a real discussion even take place if we have to start with talking about the reality of what the BNP is.

That isn't a picture of the BNP. It is a picture of a much more marginal fascist group.

As some one on here recently claimed "The BNP regulary murder torture, and rape left wing militants".

I don't think that this is true. I think that you are hyping them up to the point that they become Satan embodied. And then 'surprisingly' people question the truth of your allegations.

If you want to make an argument for anti-fascist activity, whether in your cross class popular front version, or in the other more militant version, try to base it on facts not turning the BNP into a bogeyman.

I think they are a despicable right wing group, but I don't think they are responsible for all of the evil in the world, or even most of it.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

arent you in your middle ages? so you are saying you, a middle aged man, is willing to stomp on some disturbingly stupid kids because they raise the flag of the BNP?

Dont be silly. Devrim quoted a part where someone was talking abolut the bnp in glasgow being stupid kids, and then you replied to that statement that we "should weed out the bad weeds" or whatever.

[chimx]

I can only speak of my experiences in the US. I lived only a few hours from the Aryan Nation's compound when it was located in Idaho. I participated in counter-protests to Aryan Nation parades and had to deal with National Alliance and WCotC regularly (the latter of which had a leader living in the same small city as me).

From my experience, these groups are so marginal and out of touch with American culture, that dedicating time to counter these groups is entirely unproductive. There are real problems effecting real working families, yet kids playing revolutionaries fixate on these irrelevant groups because it is quite simply "easy activism".


yes he did advocate repression fromt he beginning ffs, he advocated the violent crushing of the labour movement and the left and anyone with a classist orientation, and he carried it out with his supporters even before getting into power, and you as an active leftist would have experienced that first hand if you'de been there at the time.

Still want to give those benign "corproatists" with their economic regulation, mass base and non-explicitly-racist fascism a platform on the board?

Again, I don't have a problem with it. You are claiming that because they are anti-labor they should be banned now. I have news for you, capitalists are anti-labor too.

[black magick hustla]

the other day this friend who is really monstruous told me that when the kkk or the neonazis ever come to march again here in lansing, we should go over and start provoking one of them. he said the kkk is generally drunk when parading, so he said that maybe we can get one of them to attack us and then proceed to beat the living shit out of him. i think that is a pretty fun idea, and maybe i would do it, but i wouldnt politicize it at all.

[Hit The North]

Devrim:
Yet the second picture isn't even a picture of the BNP. It is a picture of the 'Nationalist Alliance' (which does consist of ex-BNP members). Nevertheless the point is made that contrary to Marmot's simplistic view, the fascists in the UK are not comprised of misguided kids but contain seasoned professional nazi scum.


I don't think that this is true. I think that you are hyping them up to the point that they become Satan embodied. And then 'surprisingly' people question the truth of your allegations.

I think you have me confused with someone else - I've never made such a claim, neither does my organisation.

In fact it seems to be you lot in the ICC who are basing their analysis on this "strawman" depiction of the far right in order to dismiss any threat that may exist. It is you who should stick to the facts.

We can begin by examining the amount of votes the BNP are attracting in UK elections; the class composition of their support; etc.

[Devrim]

I think you have me confused with someone else - I've never made such a claim, neither does my organisation.

In fact it seems to be you lot in the ICC who are basing their analysis on this "strawman" depiction of the far right in order to dismiss any threat that may exist. It is you who should stick to the facts.

We can begin by examining the amount of votes the BNP are attracting in UK elections; the class composition of their support; etc.

Please let's see election results, not individual outstanding ones, but percentages across a whole election. What are they getting? Last general election they got 0.7%.

I am not confusing you with anyone else at all. The stupidest claims about the BNP haven't come from you, but then I never claimed they had. You are exaggerating their strength and hyping them up though.

Devrim

Edit: Just on a point of fact, I am not a member of the ICC, nor is anybody else on this thread.

[Invader Zim]

Please let's see election results, not individual outstanding ones, but percentages across a whole election.

Why ignore the growing support for the BNP in specific areas?

[Devrim]

Why ignore the growing support for the BNP in specific areas?

It is not ignoring it. It is including it within the overall statistics. The reason for looking at the whole is that is how you see trends.

Devrim

[Hit The North]

Please let's see election results, not individual outstanding ones, but percentages across a whole election. What are they getting? Last general election they got 0.7%.


I'm quite willing to be forthright on this matter. There is nothing to be gained from bigging-up the BNP. The analysis of the BNPs fortunes in the last local elections demonstrates uneven progress for them. They didn't amass the support they hoped for (hey, just maybe because of the efforts of various anti-fascist groups in exposing the BNP for what they are and not what they pretend to be!). They lost out in some areas but they made gains in other areas. Comrades can read a sober summation of this here: http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/elections/results_2008.php

But Zim makes a very good point. If you are a socialist living in those areas like Burnley, Stoke-on-Trent, Rotherham, or Barking and Dagenham, where the BNP have made gains and where many amongst the most disadvantaged sections of the white working class are parroting BNP politics, it becomes an urgent priority to counteract their pernicious influence. What would comrades Devrim and Marmot advise if they were active in such places?


I am not confusing you with anyone else at all. The stupidest claims about the BNP haven't come from you, but then I never claimed they had. You are exaggerating their strength and hyping them up though.
It would be helpful if you could link to these "stupidest" claims you allude to so we can see exactly who is making them. Then we can judge whether the over-zealous ramblings of a few individuals has any connection whatsoever with the actual anti-fascist organizations 'out there' in the analogue world.


Edit: Just on a point of fact, I am not a member of the ICC, nor is anybody else on this thread. Whatever. It was comrades who link in their signatures to the ICC or affiliated organizations who stomped onto this thread and introduced the straw man argument that, in your words:


you are hyping them up to the point that they become Satan embodied.... turning the BNP into a bogeyman... I think they are a despicable right wing group, but I don't think they are responsible for all of the evil in the world, or even most of it.Strange that this argument was introduced into the discussion when the discussion was actually about something else. Who, by the way, in this threads has claimed that the BNP is "responsible for all of the evil in the world, or even most of it"? Name names.

[Vanguard1917]

2) It has a political tendency to say that the fascists are the worst threat, thus tying workers to the defence of the state (even in its more 'radical' forms).

We see this happening in practice, and very openly. 'Anti-fascist' groups openly calling on the state to 'shut down the nazis', asking the establishment to increase its policing powers over political life, over what can and cannot be said in public, over what the masses should and should not be allowed to hear and see...

In these times of unprecedented conformity, we need the powers that be to increase their regulation of public debate like we need holes in our heads.

Groups on the left surely know this. Why, then, are they nowadays likely to be at the forefront of movements calling for further anti-free speech legislation?

[black magick hustla]

Whatever. It was comrades who link in their signatures to the ICC or affiliated organizations who stomped onto this thread and introduced the straw man argument that, in your words:

Well, its the position of the whole communist left. It was also the position of council communists. The reason why we argue against anti-fascism is precisely because anti-fasicsm ruined the communist millieu to the point of "communists" singing the marseillase and urging workers to put their throats in the line for their democratic bosses. The "communists" are partly responsable for the 100 million dead in WWII in the name of democracy or fascism. We see the same thing with so called communist and anarchist antifas trying to tie workers into the defense of the state against the fascist boogeyman. Again, people havent replied tome why more communists are willing to punch the lights out of a few bnp loons than the friendly people campaigning for labor.

[Devrim]

Whatever. It was comrades who link in their signatures to the ICC or affiliated organizations who stomped onto this thread and introduced the straw man argument that, in your words:

'stomped' into this thread. Actually, I came in after somebody misinterpreted something I had said elsewhere (look back and check it if you like).


Strange that this argument was introduced into the discussion when the discussion was actually about something else. Who, by the way, in this threads has claimed that the BNP is "responsible for all of the evil in the world, or even most of it"? Name names.

Yes, the discussion was about something else, but the focus changed.

Of course the phrase "responsible for all of the evil in the world, or even most of it" is a parody of what people are saying.


It would be helpful if you could link to these "stupidest" claims you allude to so we can see exactly who is making them. Then we can judge whether the over-zealous ramblings of a few individuals has any connection whatsoever with the actual anti-fascist organizations 'out there' in the analogue world.

This is one of the most ludicrous:


The BNP actively beats up, rapes, tortures, and kills ethnic minorities and working class militants. The BNP must be cleared before it grows to any significant size, becuase like any fash group, it operates primarily through street thugs, and bullying. It posits a particularly virulent anti worker politic, that can and will be killed before it takes root. Its one of the few things radicals can make a big impact in the here and now. The evidence is actually pretty clear. Britain remains relatively fash free. France did not efficiently target fash, and now the national alliance is a mass party.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1214162&postcount=3

But this is a good recent example of how their strength is exaggerated:


ten years ago the BNP was lucky to get 2%, now they usually get over 20%.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1235221&postcount=11

Which as the statistics that you link to show is rubbish.

Devrim

[Edelweiss]

Devrim, putting the BNP aside, you can hardly deny that that in your very own country the fascist party actually is a lot more than a "boogeyman", and is deeply involved in Turkish society, in parliament, in civil society and within the Turkish establishment. Obviously the Turkish fascists are a threat, and I can't believe you just chose to ignore this threat because of some stupid party line. I'm quiet sure that a takeover of the Turkish fascists is a lot more likely than a communist revolution. Therefore you simply have no other choice than to react to fascist activity, everything else would just be a blatant act of lack of solidarity with the victims of the fascists.

The line of the ICC might be analytically correct, but it entirely fails in application in real live, when it actually comes to confrontation with the fascists on the streets, and you have to defend yourself. I already said earlier that anti-fascist self-defense means to deal with the problem at it roots, not just to "protect workers meetings" as you naively said earlier.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Devrim
Of course the phrase "responsible for all of the evil in the world, or even most of it" is a parody of what people are saying.

Yes, 'parody' is a good word for it.

Meanwhile, the two posts you link to were made by a comrade from the USA and one from Australia - neither of whom have any direct experience of what's going on in the UK. Therefore it is hardly credible that their misinformed comments reflect the opinion or analysis of anti-fascists in the UK.

[Invader Zim]

It is not ignoring it. It is including it within the overall statistics. The reason for looking at the whole is that is how you see trends.

Devrim

Nation wide trends are not really relevent if you are of an ethnic minority in a town where the BNP have enough support to get a person on the council.

[black magick hustla]

The line of the ICC might be analytically correct, but it entirely fails in application in real live, when it actually comes to confrontation with the fascists on the streets, and you have to defend yourself. I already said earlier that anti-fascist self-defense means to deal with the problem at it roots, not just to "protect workers meetings" as you naively said earlier.

What about normal gangs? Do we need to make a political statement about their extermination and how the duty of communists is to violently confront them?

[Leo]

Devrim, putting the BNP aside, you can hardly deny that that in your very own country the fascist party actually is a lot more than a "boogeyman", and is deeply involved in Turkish society, in parliament, in civil society and within the Turkish establishment. Obviously the Turkish fascists are a threat, and I can't believe you just chose to ignore this threat because of some stupid party line. I'm quiet sure that a takeover of the Turkish fascists is a lot more likely than a communist revolution. Therefore you simply have no other choice than to react to fascist activity, everything else would just be a blatant act of lack of solidarity with the victims of the fascists.

Actually the Turkish fascists are indeed a good example.

They have no plans whatsoever of "taking power", they are completely integrated into the current order, and they have always been as such, even when they were going around murdering people in the streets. Currently, if we consider the AKP government (Justice and Development Party, "Muslim Democrats") and the main opposition CHP (Republican People's Party, ultra-nationalist social-democrats) as two main poles in the parliament, the fascists are effectively the centrists, and orient their politics to taking moderate positions between the two main parties.

Their youth paramilitaries, the Gray Wolves, are actually quite dangerous, and in places where they are dominant they go around beating people, stabbing them and so forth.

Now, what is the specific threat posed by this party?

The Turkish state is systematically imprisoning militants, torture is still very common in prisons, female political prisoners get raped in custody. The Turkish state systematically attacks workers living conditions. The police systematically attack demonstrations, hundreds were arrested in the last May Day demonstration, and the police went so far that they didn't hesitate to throw teargas into hospitals. This state was involved in the systematic destruction of Kurdish villages, and has a history of horrible genocides including the Armenian genocide, the forced departure of hundreds of thousands of Greeks, sending of non-Muslims into labor camps and so forth. Those are things the current fascists can only fantasize about.

I had fights with fascists at school. It is possible that in the future we might have militants who are trying to do political work in places where fascists are dominant, and of course consequently if necessary we will have to defend ourselves. Forgive me though if I am slightly more afraid of being imprisoned for political activity and getting tortured than having a fight with a fascist kid, and thus take the "bourgeois threat" in general more seriously than the "fascist threat" which is only a part of the "bourgeois threat".

Yet this is not even the whole point. The ideology of this state has a strong influence on lots of workers. The ideology of the fascists is fundamentally a part of the ideology of the state. Now, the fascist party got 15% at the last elections, getting 5.001.869 votes. Most of those who voted for them are peasants and workers. Should we exterminate all of them then? Should we try to beat up a fascist worker when we encounter him in the workplace, or should we try to convince him that he is wrong? Getting involved in gang fights kills politics, and is not something to look for if one is actually trying to do militant communist work.

[Edelweiss]

Should we exterminate all of them then? Should we try to beat up a fascist worker when we encounter him in the workplace, or should we try to convince him that he is wrong?

Well, anti-fascist work isn't necessarily militant. Militant anti-fascism is an option, nut mot a necessity. I do approve militant anti-fascism for example to prevent Nazi marches here in Germany, something which most of the time means to confront both the fascists, but before the state police force, which is protecting the fascists.

However, educational work, like you suggested, is a similar part of anti-fascist work. I don't see at all why "anti-fascism" is such a bard word for you, when you effectively doing anti-fascist work as well.

Furthermore, I don't understand your logic at all how anti-fascist work does imply to defend the bourgeois state. I think, and at least German Antifa is proofing that, you can be both an anti-fascist and an opponent of the bourgeois state. Nevertheless I don't see anything wrong when certain communist or anarchist groups do focus more on anti-fascism than on a struggle against the state, I see this more as a practical share of work within the communist movement.

[Leo]

However, educational work, like you suggested, is a similar part of anti-fascist work. I don't see at all why "anti-fascism" is such a bard word for you, when you effectively doing anti-fascist work as well.The term has a historical meaning, one of defending the bourgeois state, and defending democracy, as well as one of getting involved in gang warfare as well as at times a lynching mentality, and has been used by different imperialist powers to gain support for their war.

Obviously a communist has to be completely against fascism in every way, and argue against fascism and condemn it's crimes just as it argues against all bourgeois ideologies. Obviously communists have to defend themselves if attacked. Obviously communists have to argue with workers who are fascists and try to convince them that they are wrong and that their politics contradict their class interests. I don't see this as anti-fascism, that term has a different historical meaning. Similarly, a communist has to be against patriarchy and has to call for the destruction of family; but this doesn't make a communist a feminist, which is a term with a different historical meaning. The solution we offer is different, the method we pursue is different, the context of and reasons behind why we oppose fascism are different.


Furthermore, I don't understand your logic at all how anti-fascist work does imply to defend the bourgeois state.

It separates fascism from the rest of bourgeois ideologies, and overemphasizing the importance of fascists while rather willingly or not underemphasizing the danger that would be coming from other sections of the bourgeoisie. Consequently, although it doesn't necessarily openly call for supporting the bourgeois state, it seperates the struggle against the bourgeois state and bourgeois ideology from the struggle against fascism, and gives priority to the latter.

[Zurdito]

Again, I don't have a problem with it. You are claiming that because they are anti-labor they should be banned now

no, that´s not what I am arguing. I am arguing that the sole purpose of fascism is organising to wipe out any progressive forces, and above all the labour movement.

capitalism is not an ideology, it´s a system. the system uses different ideologies to justify it´s rule. the ultimate and most reactioanry expression of this is fascism, and as their purpose to end the existence of the kind of people who post ont his forum, I don´t think that people who support this ideology (most of them are active) should be given a platform by the forum.

not everyone who believes inw orking within capitalism, nor even everyone who actively thinks capitalism is good, is involved in a movement whose sole purpose is to organise to wipe out the left.

[Devrim]

Meanwhile, the two posts you link to were made by a comrade from the USA and one from Australia - neither of whom have any direct experience of what's going on in the UK. Therefore it is hardly credible that their misinformed comments reflect the opinion or analysis of anti-fascists in the UK.

I would suggest that it shows the impression that is being given to people oversees.

It isn't only them though.

Devrim