The Philosophy of Anti-fascism

[Holden Caulfield]

Lets have a little wander down justification lane, i'll change the subject as we progress if this takes off but to start with lets discuss (for or against, motives and justifications) the tactic of 'No Platformism' and the extent to which it would be (/hypothetically) applied.

No Platformism is technically censorship of a view, or set of views (in this case fascism) which is a intolerant and a danger to the fabric of our or any future socialist society.

I would argue for this tactic of censorship with J.S. Mill as the foundations of my position, that is freedom of expression, speech etc, should not and cannot be afforded to those who which to limit the freedoms of others based along reactionary/rascist lines as it damages socity as a whole. The limit on the 'liberty' of fascists is massively out weighed by the 'protection' of society and of those who would be alienated, dehumanised and attacked by the words (and possible acts) of those who are censored.

Although Mill argues for free speech and freedom of expression and publication he also argues to contradict this, saying that the incitement of hatred (etc) is more of a danger to liberty (and society) than the act of censorship itself. His view can be basically summed up (in my opinion) that we should tolerate the freedom of speech only of those who are tolerant, a view that goes hand in hand with my personal love for the words of Malcom X.

What do you chaps think of what i have said and the subject in itself?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I think people downplay the effects racism + sexism has on a culture.

The views can be disprove until your eyeballs rot but at the end of the day having fash wanker wandering round spouting their bile influances the culture which makes it more socialy aceptable to discrimnate against blacks,gays women etc. It also enforces a "might it right" view into socitey.

[Holden Caulfield]

surely then by using your might (political or physical) to silence them you are following the same 'might is right' philosophy,

Mill did also say (i paraphrase) "if all mankind minus one are of a common view they have no right to silence that one man than he does to silence them"

Mill would argue that by censoring even wrong opinions you weaken your own position, and that you cannot be certain of any ideas unless you constantly put them to the test

(im just putting across another view to help things along ive made my own position clear on this)

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

surely then by using your might (political or physical) to silence them you are following the same 'might is right' philosophy,

Mill did also say (i paraphrase) "if all mankind minus one are of a common view they have no right to silence that one man than he does to silence them"

Mill would argue that by censoring even wrong opinions you weaken your own position, and that you cannot be certain of any ideas unless you constantly put them to the test

(im just putting across another view to help things along ive made my own position clear on this)


Off course theres a danger of that. Its why antifacism should not be a sole issue alone. We should dispell any shitty macho imagery we have. Its a risk so we should make it clear that we support the class struggle aswell though orginizations such as the IWW AFED the IMT etc.

We must be able to reach a point in which we are not seen as the "protectors" of the community" but as the community. Its also important to encourage debate for how fascism can be opposed and how community's can work (communist resident groups etc) in which everyone from the six foot five redskin* to the little old lady who likes to go trainspotting can have a say in how things work.

We must make it clear that the violence is a neccary "evil" (although a better phrase would be nice) rather then a means of boosting our egos and proving how big our bellends are.


Also as for this sad libreal myth of free speech LOOK FUCKING AROUND YOU. Free speech gets shat on when somthing threatens the status que. Look at how communists were and still are treated in the stats. Look at that kid who got nicked for posting pro islamic nutjob stuff of the internet.

Its all restricting free speech but just given another name.

"Why would we want to copy them you might say?

Because we want to win. No decent person will let that cancer known as fascism manifest in the community and no i dont care about "moral highground". When somone bangs on about lack of morals what they really mean is lack of people doing what they want them to do / act.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Should not the opposition to fascism be placed in context? Fascism is not an abstract evil, to be opposed. It is simply the extreme of the capitalist system, in short of the bourgeoisie dictatorship.

A bourgeoisie liberal republic is preferable for organizing the working class, so when the alternative is fascism - which was unhinged in it's imperialism and exploitation, bourgeoisie democracy is preferable.

That being said, fascism is ascendant nowhere in the world, and even given the current crisis I doubt fascism will make any large strides towards government power.

Its unlikely any of those clowns can take goverment power but it is likely that any area they have a pressance in will start to develop ultra-reactionary attitudes such as racism-homophobia-sexism-blind following of authority-etc.

[Holden Caulfield]

Should not the opposition to fascism be placed in context? Fascism is not an abstract evil, to be opposed. It is simply the extreme of the capitalist system, in short of the bourgeoisie dictatorship.

A bourgeoisie liberal republic is preferable for organizing the working class, so when the alternative is fascism - which was unhinged in it's imperialism and exploitation, bourgeoisie democracy is preferable.

That being said, fascism is ascendant nowhere in the world, and even given the current crisis I doubt fascism will make any large strides towards government power.

i see your point but this is on freedom of speech etc... if you doubt they will make any strides towards power letting them have freedom of speech will show them to be wrong and you can strengthen your own position through debate and analysis of them, so it seems as if you support freedom of speech even if you say you dont,

if you get my point

[Holden Caulfield]

My position comes from the fact that in a fascist system I wouldn't be able to make this post (in all likelihood). So from that I conclude that this bourgeoisie 'freedom', even if superficial, spurious, cynical, and hypocritical, is still better than fascism.

i know, but as i have said we are discussing the theory of 'no platformism' which is us, as the left and as members of communities, will not afford fascists freedom of speech if we can (by stopping their demos etc) and the logical conclusion that if we were in power the fact we would censor fascists,

in this thread we discuss only this atm, im sorry i trashed your previous post it was off topic (although a good post it didnt adress the issue at hand)

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Aldi i wrote a response to the trashed post (but it was trashed while i was writing it) il post it on your user area.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

If needed.

[Holden Caulfield]

How do mean? Do you using force to break up fascist gatherings?

force, popular mass protests, political pressure, etc,
no platformism by any means necessary

[Forward Union]

I support freedom of speech, and free access to all ideas and philosophies for people. That means, I think public libraries should have copies of Mein Kampf, the Koran, and Charles Manson's music.

I also recognise the right of people to openly and freely debate ideas like fascism, racism, christianity etc. I don't however recognise the right of facism to organise and do support the No-Platform approach, in principal. I think most anarchists do.

But I personally object to anti-fascism. I think it's substitutionalist bollocks. There's only one stage, rather than throw rotton eggs at the fascists for speaking on it, we should attempt to stand up on it ourselves.

[Holden Caulfield]

I support freedom of speech, and free access to all ideas and philosophies for people. That means, I think public libraries should have copies of Mein Kampf, the Koran, and Charles Manson's music.
same, such views should be allowed to exsist, we cannot re-write or censor history to suit our own motives, look how bad it made the Stalinst looks as well as the fact it is tyranical


I also recognise the right of people to openly and freely debate ideas like fascism, racism, christianity etc. I don't however recognise the right of facism to organise and do support the No-Platform approach, in principal. I think most anarchists do.


i agree, however fascism or any form of religion that is intolerant should not be tolerated, it should not be allowed to be preached in public spheres or to take root amongst impressionable people especially young people


But I personally object to anti-fascism. I think it's substitutionalist bollocks.
how so, we do not advocate merely anti-fascism or say people should vote Labour to stop the BNP etc & most antifa (at least in the uk) are anarchists and so also work for anarchist change (or socialist change if you are a socialist). fighting fascism is a crucial part of the class struggle not a substitute for it


There's only one stage, rather than throw rotton eggs at the fascists for speaking on it, we should attempt to stand up on it ourselves.


the stage should not be given to those who wish to abuse it, and to those whos words incite discrimination or curbs on the 'liberty' or lives of others. we will always take the stage when the stage is there for us, we will always criticize fascist ideology, what we will not allow is to sit back while fascists discriminate and spread division amongst 'our' communities and our class

[Forward Union]

how so, we do not advocate merely anti-fascism or say people should vote Labour to stop the BNP etc & most antifa (at least in the uk) are anarchists and so also work for anarchist change (or socialist change if you are a socialist). fighting fascism is a crucial part of the class struggle not a substitute for it

Because the BNP are not in the position they are because of anti-communism. They are actually there for precisely the opposite reasons. They brought constructive proposals to the table, engaged in positive community action and localism. They dropped all left-right terminology and began arguing for the merits of their ideology, and against the merits of other as opposed to aruing about labels and historical facts.

We should be active in our workplaces, building our unions (and their militancy) we should be involved in our residents associations and local campaign groups.

Attacking successful fascists is a poor substitution for our diabolical failure to "take the stage" in my opinion.

[Holden Caulfield]

Because the BNP are not in the position they are because of anti-communism. They are actually there for precisely the opposite reasons. They brought constructive proposals to the table, engaged in positive community action and localism. They dropped all left-right terminology and began arguing for the merits of their ideology, and against the merits of other as opposed to aruing about labels and historical facts.

We should be active in our workplaces, building our unions (and their militancy) we should be involved in our residents associations and local campaign groups.


history is important to give context to how fascist parties act so are contempory events (see Italy) and i dont think that the BNP have dropped left-ring terms they have embraced the 'ignorantly popular' slogans of both in my opinion,

we should, and, to speak for myself and those i know, are working within communities, campaign groups, etc, this i fully agree with.

however to allow the open incitement of racial hatred (which may become deep seated in communities where it is allowed to spread) is an affront to our work in communities and a obstacle to the class struggle. im not just talking about fighting with nazis, violent parties will be met with violence yes, but even campaigns against fascists propaganda can be constructive in uniting the people and fighting reaction and division within our class.


Attacking successful fascists is a poor substitution for our diabolical failure to "take the stage" in my opinion.


if this were true more orgs would be jumping on the anti band wagon, they are not, i agree the left needs to take a step forwards into the light and again try to build mass support, i think now it is doing so after years of being weakened by Thatcherite and Blairite attacks. again; Antifascism is not a substitute for the class struggle it is a vital part of it

[Holden Caulfield]

anyhoo back to freedom of speech (new threads can be started if any users wish to debate any issues raised, or Robin can PM me for a chin wag on these issues)

[joseph_kay]

i agree, however fascism or any form of religion that is intolerant should not be tolerated, it should not be allowed to be preached in public spheres or to take root amongst impressionable people especially young people
i think the problem comes in where we draw the line for what is intolerant and what isnt. i certainly believe that leftists, myself included, are intolerant. clearly we are intolerant of opposing ideologies, such as fascism. however, we are also classist, and that is a rising concern for those who advocate hate speech laws.

in the states, it is fairly common for leftist students to interrupt or completely shut down speaking engagements by those they disagree with, most of who, while being right wing, are certainly not fascist.

would you agree that most forms of christianity and islam are intolerant of homosexuality? do you believe antifa groups should start burning churces and mosques?

what i am saying is that i think it would be foolish to establish any sort of set philosophy for antifascism or try to come up with a definition of who we should and shouldnt attack. i think a more realistic aproach should be taking cases one by one, as they come, and deciding in your groups or communities whose speech and organizing powers we should attempt to restrict.



force, popular mass protests, political pressure, etc,
no platformism by any means necessary class

do you support hate speech laws of certain current governments, such as germany, which ban nazi organizations and the like?


there was actually a post on infoshop.org a couple weeks ago where someone wrote up a lot of the points both sides of the free speech issue bring up, and then tried to conclude that antifascists should support fights against government censorship and against hate speech laws, while at the same time using community power to stop fascists from organizing. that is more or les my position also, i think.
in the states i totally support (liberal) groups like the ACLU who defend the ability of fascists to hold demos from government censorship or suppression, but i also support antifa groups who then show up and break up fascist demos.

there is a difference between a government restricting speech and the dangers that holds for society, and a community defending itself from fascists and the threat to the community of what would happen if the fascists were able to gain political power.

[Holden Caulfield]

would you agree that most forms of christianity and islam are intolerant of homosexuality? do you believe antifa groups should start burning churces and mosques?
no i dont think antiFASCSITS should try to become some kind of political group, antifa is a movement to combat fascism, i also dont advocate burning of buildings at random, people who are also antifascists can by all means protest and compaign against prejudiced religious types through other orgs if they want to tho


what i am saying is that i think it would be foolish to establish any sort of set philosophy for antifascism or try to come up with a definition of who we should and shouldnt attack.
im not, i am trying to have dialouge about the under lying ideals of antifascism and deal with the philosophical issues attached to such ideals, it isn't at all foolish to discuss such matters, im not the antifascist fuhrer im just giving an opinion and starting a discussion on the subject, nobody is going to assume my views as their own and call themselves Holdenists (although i would love it if they did). by philosophy i just mean the underlying thought and the base ideals of the movement


i think a more realistic aproach should be taking cases one by one, as they come, and deciding in your groups or communities whose speech and organizing powers we should attempt to restrict.

yeah, i think that is the case too, but i think that antifascists should hold a 'no platoform' stance as well as doing these things for the reasons i have already mentioned,


in the states i totally support (liberal) groups like the ACLU who defend the ability of fascists to hold demos from government censorship or suppression, but i also support antifa groups who then show up and break up fascist demos.
i dont support the state and i have no faith that we can rely on the state to do our work when they are more of an obstacle to the class stuggle than thr fascists themselves. your view here seems a contradictory liberal nonsense (anarcist bu any chance?), and make no sense to me i dont see the point of it in this discussion either



do you support hate speech laws of certain current governments, such as germany, which ban nazi organizations and the like?

yes, i do not support the state but i support its action (in the same why i dont support labour but support the NHS) to stop the horrors of fascism from ever taking hold again,

if you could make a more concise argument against my no platform stance on better foundations it would be great

[AFA_Sab]

I would argue for this tactic of censorship with J.S. Mill as the foundations of my position, that is freedom of expression, speech etc, should not and cannot be afforded to those who which to limit the freedoms of others based along reactionary/rascist lines as it damages socity as a whole. The limit on the 'liberty' of fascists is massively out weighed by the 'protection' of society and of those who would be alienated, dehumanised and attacked by the words (and possible acts) of those who are censored.

Freedom of speech carries responsibilbilties with it. This means it cannot advocate a tried and failed system that built and used the most vile forms of genocide, war mongering and slavery - plus comrades, plus no free speech for anyone else. If these bastards were to succeed then I guarantee you that everyone in this forum would be among the first up against the wall/brains splattered thereon! Turkeys don't vote for Christmas and we should not let any other trace of Nazism exist except the proofs of what it did and the means of how to fight it. Shit like mein kemph should be utterly destroyed except for one copy, kept in a repository like The Small pox, in case needed to understand the threat in the future.. I don't need a book to see what Nazism did. If I sound like a censoring fascist, its for good reason.
No Platform of any kind and never never again.

[Holden Caulfield]

i dont think Mein Kampf should be banned, i think it is a historical document, (i dont think the bible or the koran should be banned but that is a different matter) however those who propagate the ideas from the book should be stopped by the necessary means

[joseph_kay]

no i dont think antiFASCSITS should try to become some kind of political group, antifa is a movement to combat fascism, i also dont advocate burning of buildings at random, people who are also antifascists can by all means protest and compaign against prejudiced religious types through other orgs if they want to tho

but they are a politcal group. combating fascism, which is a political movement, makes you political.


i dont support the state and i have no faith that we can rely on the state to do our work when they are more of an obstacle to the class stuggle than thr fascists themselves. your view here seems a contradictory liberal nonsense (anarcist bu any chance?), and make no sense to me i dont see the point of it in this discussion either

yes, i do not support the state but i support its action (in the same why i dont support labour but support the NHS) to stop the horrors of fascism from ever taking hold again,

if you could make a more concise argument against my no platform stance on better foundations it would be great
my views do seem contradictory at first, but i believe they arnt really. what i am saying is that we should never support government censorship, including hate speech laws. we should do everything we can to limit the power government holds.
we should also use any means that we, as communities and not governments have to stop fascists from gaining power. by stopping fascism, we are in the long run putting a limit on government. i say this because fascists only become truly dangerous when they are able to use the force of the government. once fascists gain control of government, they will do what they can to extend government powers.
so in the end, fighting against government censorship (of anyone, including fascists), and fighting against those who wish to extend the power of the government (fascists) is the same struggle.


that is my view of things, and how i tend to justify both being for militant antifascism while being opposed to hate speech laws.


I'm not really sure i know what you mean exactly when you use the term no platform.
if you stand by the definition you gave of "censorship of a view, or set of views (in this case fascism) which is a intolerant and a danger to the fabric of our or any future socialist society."

then i once again would bring up christianity and islam, both of which i think can be seen historically as extremely harmful, and ideologically at odds with socialist society. in which case, they should be treated in the same way as fascists are.

if there is a difference, could you please explain it?

[Holden Caulfield]

but they are a politcal group. combating fascism, which is a political movement, makes you political.

what i mean to say is that antifa is a group to combat fascists, the members are not members like they are of the AFed or the Socialist Party or whatever, antifa is just a collection of people from various groups gathered to fight fascism head on, they have no other objectives as a group other than to fight fascists their other work happens from within their exsisting group (Afed for whatever)



my views do seem contradictory at first, but i believe they arnt really. what i am saying is that we should never support government censorship, including hate speech laws. we should do everything we can to limit the power government holds.
we should also use any means that we, as communities and not governments have to stop fascists from gaining power. by stopping fascism, we are in the long run putting a limit on government. i say this because fascists only become truly dangerous when they are able to use the force of the government. once fascists gain control of government, they will do what they can to extend government powers.
so in the end, fighting against government censorship (of anyone, including fascists), and fighting against those who wish to extend the power of the government (fascists) is the same struggle.


that is my view of things, and how i tend to justify both being for militant antifascism while being opposed to hate speech laws.

i hold you view in high regard it is well justified and has good foundations, however i disagree, government 'laws' that mirror the will of the people are good, they are ment as consessions but used by us a tools to show that we are fighting for the people, reforms such as censorship of fascists gained by public hatred of fascists etc, can be used to awaken the revolutionary will of the people as well as stopping cowards such as the BNP/BPP from being able to hide behind lines of riot police while they play big men,

i think on this matter if i havent swayed you i am more than willing to agree to disagree, you come at it from an anarchist view point which i respect i come at it from my own perspective

[joseph_kay]

i think on this matter if i havent swayed you i am more than willing to agree to disagree, you come at it from an anarchist view point which i respect i come at it from my own perspective

agreed.
and what is important is that we have each other's backs in the street.

[AFA_Sab]

then i once again would bring up christianity and islam, both of which i think can be seen historically as extremely harmful, and ideologically at odds with socialist society. in which case, they should be treated in the same way as fascists are.if there is a difference, could you please explain it?
Well, JKay I suppose i would see it as: what is actual message contained? With Christianity and Islam their messages are at variance with those who use these religions to do harm to others.
Nazism on the other hand, had no such contradictions. Conquer, Cleanse, Enslave, Destroy and Kill all who aren't 'like us'.
I know which one I'm up for for banning.

[K.Bullstreet]

Ok, I'm doing my usual thread debate thing and not actually reading the previous posts (I don't have time, and even if I did I would loose interest before the end). But I wanted to join in so here is my view on 'No Platformism.'

I believe in free speech (obviously as all anarchists will). People should be able to experience a whole host of different ideas and opinions, and people should also be able to express different opinions. This is after all one of the basic essentials of freedom. I do however, think that there is a difference between the freedom of speech, and the freedom to organise.

The fact is that fascists here and in many other places are around the world are organising fascist groups and movements, with varying levels of success. These fascists would not hesistate to take these same freedoms away from others, because of ethnic background, sexuality, political belief and so on. History shows us that this is the case, and we have to look no further than various far-right publications or forums to see that nothing has changed.

Therefore, I think that by taking a No Platform approach with fascists and fascist groups is doing the right thing. By letting them go about their usual hate-fueled business unoppossed, we give them room to grow and spread their bollocks safely. Give them an inch, and they will take a mile. If we apply pressure, both physically but more importantly politically then they will find it harder to grow, they won't be concentrating on selling their papers and spreading more shite to working class communities if the odds are that their meeting is about to get smashed in and they are going to take a beating.

We must not forget that anti-fascism is just one part of class struggle politics. The bigger enemy must always be in our sights, the state and capitalism. And we must continue to promote working class resistance and self organisation.

I would end it with that famous Hitler quote...but that is soooo over quoted. ;)

[Holden Caulfield]

if nobody has anything to add on this subject i would like to move onto anti-fascist violence,

is anybody against it on moral, ideological or anyother basis? or what reasons do you give for supporting anti-fascist violence, and what limits do you class as necessary or acseptable?

[4 Leaf Clover]

here is how far i would go. If i saw a guy on the street with "hitler was right" t-shirt , i would shout "shame on you " and proceed. If i saw guy walking by the other black guy and racialy insulting him and telling nazi speech i would smash him in face directly. If i saw a facist guy trying to kill other antifa or few jews that are having prayer in a vicinity , i would stabb him out

[Rosa Provokateur]

The problem with "anti-fascist violence" is that its a contradiction in terms, violence is a fascist tactic in and of itself.

[Anti-Racist League]

Inciting violence against people because of the colour of their skin should not be protected by ludicrous appeals to "freedom of speech". The whole purpose of racist publications is to pit the "races" against one another, to incite strife and disorder in our society, and to thwart class solidarity and international unity, an act for which in an enlightened community racists would be criminally prosecuted. The day will come, and we will live to see it, when white racists like Ian Jobling and Jared Taylor are tried, found guilty, and shot for inciting racial violence.

Since it is futile for us to appeal to the morality of white racists, for no one with any moral sensibility would countenance the white supremacist ideology of which they are adherents, I have attempted on my blog to appeal to the self-interest of individual racists. America, I pointed out, is no longer a "white" country. There is nothing white racism can do to thwart the tide of human progress. Proponents of racism should simply adjust themselves to this fact, and perhaps their false discontents may be alleviated thereby.

But I fear that the reasoning faculty of white racists is so beclouded with prejudice that they are unable to discern even their own individual interests.

[jaffe]

you mean that all anti fascist resistance fighters/soldiers were in fact fascists?
and revolutions mostly dont start with huggin the opposition

[Holden Caulfield]

the use of 'fascist' in regards to antifascists is liberal language picked up the the likes of the BNP to discredit a valid working class movement,

the very word fascist doesnt mean violent, or direct action, we are not fascists and that is very clear, we are not ideologically similar to the fash at all, we do not see violence as 'stooping to their level' we have no Christian morality in regards to violence. We see the use of violence (etc) merely as meeting the fascists on every front, we meet them politically where they rise politically and we meet them on the streets where ever they have a presance,

we meet them on the streets not as 'vigilantes' but as members of the communities they are trying to corrupt and divide, remember; "an injury to one is an injury to all" fascist violence against immigrants, ethnic minorities etc.. is violence against us all and will not tolerated,

those who preach division sow the seeds of violence and prejudice,

( on a side note; the limits of No Platform i think are tested when, as in London, the fascists already had the platform and the SWP stood down to not legitimise them, however, in my view they should have engaged them in open debate. If the fascists have a platform to disregard this and use justifications of 'no platformism' for not meeting them is a contradiction of terms and it hands the platform to them alone from which to preach)

[Rosa Provokateur]

Inciting violence against people because of the colour of their skin should not be protected by ludicrous appeals to "freedom of speech". The whole purpose of racist publications is to pit the "races" against one another, to incite strife and disorder in our society, and to thwart class solidarity and international unity, an act for which in an enlightened community racists would be criminally prosecuted.

Why not? I see plenty people inciting violence against capitalists and right-wingers; if one is allowed then so is it's counter-part; one hand washes the other.

Alot of leftist publications do the same; pit classes against eachother, incite strife and disorder. I don't think class is a consideration for racists and they see race as being more important then nation so those two barriers arent even worth discussion.

I dont come to justify or defend them but if we want freedom for all, we must recognize and respect the freedom of all.

[Rosa Provokateur]

you mean that all anti fascist resistance fighters/soldiers were in fact fascists?
and revolutions mostly dont start with huggin the opposition
I mean that they had to resort to killing because their particular ideological schooling relied on it. Fascists rely on force because they know that otherwise their ideas cant succeed; if an idea is truly good then it shouldnt rely on violence but rather the fact that it benefits the people around it.

[Rosa Provokateur]

the very word fascist doesnt mean violent, or direct action, we are not fascists and that is very clear, we are not ideologically similar to the fash at all, we do not see violence as 'stooping to their level' we have no Christian morality in regards to violence. We see the use of violence (etc) merely as meeting the fascists on every front, we meet them politically where they rise politically and we meet them on the streets where ever they have a presance,

we meet them on the streets not as 'vigilantes' but as members of the communities they are trying to corrupt and divide, remember; "an injury to one is an injury to all" fascist violence against immigrants, ethnic minorities etc.. is violence against us all and will not tolerated,

those who preach division sow the seeds of violence and prejudice,


Its not ideology but tactics that concern me, tactically theres no difference between fascist and antifa violence. Antifa sees fascists building momentum so they assault them and vise-versa until it no longer becomes a fight between right and wrong but a squabble between gangs.

It it any wonder that the media sees the radical left as being chaos and destruction? Its because things like this present us in a chaotic and destructive manner that brings no vision of hope but of terror.

Fire cannot be put out with fire; violence against violence only breeds more violence and it will continue until one side decides to have the balls enough to try non-violence. Non-violence works, its a proven method and I offer alternatives to anyone willing to listen.

[jaffe]

I mean that they had to resort to killing because their particular ideological schooling relied on it.
You mean that when Franco invaded Spain they just should let him slaughter all opposition, because we have an anti violent ideologie?
When Mussolinis blackshirts came to break strikes, smash up left wing offices etc it was a right thing to stand by and do nothing?


Fascists rely on force because they know that otherwise their ideas cant succeed;
Hitler got voted in you knew that?

[Sasha]

Fire cannot be put out with fire; violence against violence only breeds more violence and it will continue until one side decides to have the balls enough to try non-violence. Non-violence works, its a proven method and I offer alternatives to anyone willing to listen.

utter and complete bollocks, (exclusive) non-violence is classist, sexsist/partriarchal, racist/white supremacist and not to mention ineffective.
i could have an lengty discussion about this with you but in stead i will dare you to read this book.
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4355288/_HOW_NONVIOLENCE_PROTECTS_THE_STATE_-_Peter_Gelderloos
http://www.amazon.com/Nonviolence-Protects-State-Peter-Gelderloos/dp/0896087727
Although i doubt you be willing to listen yourself.

and in the mean time; mods, please escort mister preacher to OI's

[Sprinkles]

Hitler got voted in you knew that?

Not true at all.

The NSDAP never received more than 37 percent of the national vote. In the election of 1932 the NSDAP won 230 seats in the Reichstag, which although large, isn't a majority when there are 608 seats in the Reichstag in total. It was Hindenburg who appointed Hitler chancellor and put him in complete control of the state.

Figures from the official site of the Bundestag / German parliament:
http://www.bundestag.de/htdocs_e/history/factsheets/elections_weimar_republic.pdf

[jaffe]

I knew my history books lied ;)
but still he got appointed by Hindenburg (and with a little help from his supporters on the street)

[An archist]

Its not ideology but tactics that concern me, tactically theres no difference between fascist and antifa violence. Antifa sees fascists building momentum so they assault them and vise-versa until it no longer becomes a fight between right and wrong but a squabble between gangs.

It it any wonder that the media sees the radical left as being chaos and destruction? Its because things like this present us in a chaotic and destructive manner that brings no vision of hope but of terror.

Fire cannot be put out with fire; violence against violence only breeds more violence and it will continue until one side decides to have the balls enough to try non-violence. Non-violence works, its a proven method and I offer alternatives to anyone willing to listen.

You don't come out too much do you?

[rednordman]

if nobody has anything to add on this subject i would like to move onto anti-fascist violence,

is anybody against it on moral, ideological or anyother basis? or what reasons do you give for supporting anti-fascist violence, and what limits do you class as necessary or acseptable?
This is a very difficult question to answer for the simple reason that i see both sides of the argument being of equal relevance and i have respect for both. I like most of the people on this board have a pure hatred of fascists (and most hard-right in general). Infact having an emotion so intense as to actually want to cause harm on these people is not that alien to me. But, thinking about it, its rather interesting to take a look at the actual situations of these people whom become fascists. Most are working class, not rich, do not understand much about politics and history, and above all else, have nothing about them.
Taking a more in-depth look, they, like you and me are simply victims of capitalism, and though i, like you, totally dispise with an absolute passion what they believe in and the bull-shit that they preach, i actually begin to feel sorry for them. They are all just sad individuals huddled together into a group.
I would be more inclined to go for the 'no-platform' approach, but the more they preach, the more it makes me realise exact how badly capitalism and vulgar scale individualism has failed, so it is actually quite intruiging when i see similar bullshit in the headlines of tabloids, and the popularty of the BNP grow (not that thats a good thing though). These people have just fallen for the lies and sensationalism that the media and bnp is feeding them. heck, we all know that at the end of the day, the BNP are just racist opportunists and don't give a shit about the public or working class. If only their followers would just accept that and get a life.
I dont really believe in karma, but what goes around comes around and people will just realise without antifa that the real reason why there are less jobs now is because of greedy buisnesses trying to scrape the barrel getting cheap temporary labour from eastern europe (please do not misunderstand though, i think that the diversity it is bringing is great, but as far as the buisness interests are concerned, thats besides the point).
Like other people who have posted, i think things would be better with a community effort, rather than violence, but i do understand why people do feel the need to use violence though.

[Rosa Provokateur]

You mean that when Franco invaded Spain they just should let him slaughter all opposition, because we have an anti violent ideologie?
When Mussolinis blackshirts came to break strikes, smash up left wing offices etc it was a right thing to stand by and do nothing?



I cant say what they should've done because I wasnt there; I'm not advocating retreat of surrender but alternatives. Violence is dependent on reaction, if the person being attacked responds counter to what the attacker is expecting he catches him by suprise and psychologically disarms him because he wasnt prepared.

[Labor Shall Rule]

The problem with "anti-fascist violence" is that its a contradiction in terms, violence is a fascist tactic in and of itself.

It's a tactic that has defeated fascists *cough* World War 2, War of Liberation, the Great Patriotic War *cough*

[Rosa Provokateur]

It's a tactic that has defeated fascists *cough* World War 2, War of Liberation, the Great Patriotic War *cough*
In World War II all that was needed was for the people in the German occupied nations to ignore the occupiers. An occupation cant control a people that doesnt recognize its "authority".

As for the War of Liberation, I'm not familiar with it; Stalin was just as bad as Hitler so the Great Patriotic War counts for nothing.

[Sasha]

In World War II all that was needed was for the people in the German occupied nations to ignore the occupiers. An occupation cant control a people that doesnt recognize its "authority".



its hard to igore someone who is shooting, torturing and starving you. Let alone when he loads you up in catle-trainwagons ans sends you to be gassed in concetrationcamps.

i'm not one to swear online but: Fuck of you total ignorant asshole i'm reporting you to the moderaters, have fun in the restricted section vuile christenhond.

[Holden Caulfield]

i'm not one to swear online but: Fuck of you total ignorant asshole i'm reporting you to the moderaters, have fun in the restricted section vuile christenhond.
he has a point, and GA by all means talk as one effected morally by "god" but quoting the bible here to back up an arguement is about as good as quoting Mein Kampf tbh, also how can one be "against organised religion" and then quoting the product of it?

[jaffe]

its hard to igore someone who is shooting, torturing and starving you. Let alone when he loads you up in catle-trainwagons ans sends you to be gassed in concetrationcamps.

i'm not one to swear online but: Fuck of you total ignorant asshole i'm reporting you to the moderaters, have fun in the restricted section vuile christenhond.
this

[Rosa Provokateur]

he has a point, and GA by all means talk as one effected morally by "god" but quoting the bible here to back up an arguement is about as good as quoting Mein Kampf tbh, also how can one be "against organised religion" and then quoting the product of it?
I see the Bible as being true but that doesnt change my rejection of organized religion and the man-made traditions its created.

I quoted it because I thought it'd help me make my point but if it doesnt then I wont bring it up. We're discussing fascism, not my theological beliefs, why am I being attacked like this.

[Rosa Provokateur]

its hard to igore someone who is shooting, torturing and starving you. Let alone when he loads you up in catle-trainwagons ans sends you to be gassed in concetrationcamps.

i'm not one to swear online but: Fuck of you total ignorant asshole i'm reporting you to the moderaters, have fun in the restricted section vuile christenhond.
You think I like that? The fact that the Catholic Church didnt intervene is one of the things that caused me to reject organized religion.

The Jewish resistance in the camps was justified, yes, but I still cant bring myself to support violence. If I'm ignorant then teach me and I'll learn but to lose yourself in anger because of it wont help anyone.

I'm sorry that an anti-fascist as yourself believes in restriction.

[Holden Caulfield]

but I still cant bring myself to support violence.


any violence? even the jewish resistance mentioned? and why not

[Sasha]

If I'm ignorant then teach me and I'll learn


(exclusive) non-violence is classist, sexsist/partriarchal, racist/white supremacist and not to mention ineffective.
i could have an lengty discussion about this with you but in stead i will dare you to read this book.
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4355...ter_Gelderloos (http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4355288/_HOW_NONVIOLENCE_PROTECTS_THE_STATE_-_Peter_Gelderloos)


the link is a free torrent of the book, its not that long and if english is your native language you should be able to read it prety quick.
I'll be open to discussion after you have read it (and yes i did read the bible, old and new testament, and the koran and talmut too by the way, so i guess its fair to say its your turn to make an effort) but until then your on my mental ignore list.

[Rosa Provokateur]

any violence? even the jewish resistance mentioned? and why not
I believe in the sanctity of all life. In an extreme situation I could support self-defense but never killing.

[Rosa Provokateur]

the link is a free torrent of the book, its not that long and if english is your native language you should be able to read it prety quick.
I'll be open to discussion after you have read it (and yes i did read the bible, old and new testament, and the koran and talmut too by the way, so i guess its fair to say its your turn to make an effort) but until then your on my mental ignore list.
Alright that sounds fair. Thanks for the link:)

[Holden Caulfield]

I believe in the sanctity of all life. In an extreme situation I could support self-defense but never killing.


imaging the scenario; i have a gun in my pocket strolling through secluded part of a town, and i see an SS guard loading his gun and aiming it at Jewish person, the only people around are us 3, what do i do?

[Rosa Provokateur]

imaging the scenario; i have a gun in my pocket strolling through secluded part of a town, and i see an SS guard loading his gun and aiming it at Jewish person, the only people around are us 3, what do i do?
You can either tell him to stop or you'll shoot or you can shoot him in the leg; I myself would go for a non-lethal shot.

[Sasha]

I believe in the sanctity of all life. In an extreme situation I could support self-defense but never killing.

informative question, are you also anti-choice (anti-abortion)? because in that case you can spare yourself the effort of trying to engage me in discussion even after you have read the book i sent you (i would still encourage you to read it though) because for me anti-choicers fall in the same category as racists and fascists, i would'nt spare my piss if they would be on fire. :glare:

[Rosa Provokateur]

I dont get involved in the abortion issue; the way I see it is its tearing the church apart and needs to be solved. I'm more concerned with getting pro-lifers and pro-choicers to reconcile with eachother.

[Omi]

And you, as an opposer of organized religion, think of it as a bad thing when a social issue is tearing apart the church?

Non violence just as ultra violence is like water on the fire of a movements momentum, carefully applied acts of violence like gasoline.

[Rosa Provokateur]

And you, as an opposer of organized religion, think of it as a bad thing when a social issue is tearing apart the church?

Non violence just as ultra violence is like water on the fire of a movements momentum, carefully applied acts of violence like gasoline.

I say church as in the entire faith; it's tearing christians against eachother and dividing them over one issue when theres so much work we could be doing in the world. Instead of fighting about it we should be working to create solutions.

If non-violence is water then why not use it against the momentum of your opponent. The press covers these things and when it breaks out, who do you think will look better; an antifa movement that retaliates with the same force and brutality as its enemy or an antifa that mobilized in opposition to fascism unjustly assaulted by fascists but tough enough to endure the blow and turn the other cheek.

[An archist]

I say church as in the entire faith; it's tearing christians against eachother and dividing them over one issue when theres so much work we could be doing in the world. Instead of fighting about it we should be working to create solutions.

If non-violence is water then why not use it against the momentum of your opponent. The press covers these things and when it breaks out, who do you think will look better; an antifa movement that retaliates with the same force and brutality as its enemy or an antifa that mobilized in opposition to fascism unjustly assaulted by fascists but tough enough to endure the blow and turn the other cheek.

You see, there's a fundamental flaw in that, if we completely reject violence, do you think our opponents will too? Do you think the police will stop hitting people because those people are nonviolent?
No, time and time again, police and fascists have proven that they are perfectly capable of attacking peaceful people and they will continue to do so in future.
If we decide to be peaceful, we will only encourage them, because they won't have any difficulty attacking us.

[K.Bullstreet]

I believe that physical force is totally acceptable when used against fascists, and necissary in the fight against fascism. :thumbup1:

[Holden Caulfield]

I say church as in the entire faith; it's tearing christians against eachother and dividing them over one issue when theres so much work we could be doing in the world. Instead of fighting about it we should be working to create solutions.the bodily autonomy of women is a pretty big issues regarding the chrch and society as a whole, what positon do you hold on it? and by the church do you mean believers or all classes will/can benafit society as a whole?



If non-violence is water then why not use it against the momentum of your opponent. The press covers these things and when it breaks out, who do you think will look better; an antifa movement that retaliates with the same force and brutality as its enemy or an antifa that mobilized in opposition to fascism unjustly assaulted by fascists but tough enough to endure the blow and turn the other cheek.
non-violence is a tactic we can employ it where necessary, we also do not use violence indiscriminately but it is a tried and tested method of antifascism (cable street, lewisham, etc etc) we reply in like with force, that is true but to those who spread the destruction of our societies and our class, if violence will stop them so be it. why is violence bad and being hurt good? we are not talking metaphorically here you are saying i should allow myself to be physically beaten and that it will give me some moral high ground?

ill tell you what, imaging yourself in Russia atm, would you turn the other cheek to fascists and try to talk to them?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

My position: Smash the fash wherever you may find them!


If non-violence is water then why not use it against the momentum of your opponent. The press covers these things and when it breaks out, who do you think will look better; an antifa movement that retaliates with the same force and brutality as its enemy or an antifa that mobilized in opposition to fascism unjustly assaulted by fascists but tough enough to endure the blow and turn the other cheek.

No thanks, I'd rather not invite them to knock out the rest of my teeth by turning the other cheek. I'm rather fond of the old gnashers.

[jaffe]

If non-violence is water then why not use it against the momentum of your opponent. The press covers these things and when it breaks out, who do you think will look better; an antifa movement that retaliates with the same force and brutality as its enemy or an antifa that mobilized in opposition to fascism unjustly assaulted by fascists but tough enough to endure the blow and turn the other cheek.
Anti-fascism is not about looking good for the press it's about effective struggle against fascists. And I hope you take back your statement about the people who were oppressed and fought back in WW2. untill then

Don't smoke
Don't drink
Don't fuck
At least I can't fucking think
--Minor Threat

[Sasha]

why is violence bad and being hurt good? we are not talking metaphorically here you are saying i should allow myself to be physically beaten and that it will give me some moral high ground?

we'll that seems to be the vieuw of a lot of the modern christians, in dutch we would say "lïjden loutert" (suffering purefys).
Its at the core of most christian beliefs, i say most because for exampel the south amarican liberation theology is off course a lot more nuanced about violence.
But the non-violence stance is there off-course mostly to protect the intrest of the church, after estabesling their power and domination by brute force they want to prevent that other people thake their power away againg. And the best way to protect their patrarchical, class-ist white supremecacy is to try and force others to play by their rule book, rules where they are both referee in and don't feel bound by at the same time because they can realy on the state monopoply on violence.

but to get sort of back on topic, the difrent stances of the catholics and the protestants dureing WOII were very intresting and worth an look at. Where almost all the catholics remainded pasive at best and collabarreted with the nazi at worst their was wide spread recistance under the protestantst.
This because they take, there is no other god than god, and no kings rule is more valid than gods rule, as the core of there beliefs.
So they felt justified to join the recistance and even take up arms based on the idea that it was just to try and overtrow the despotic nazis and that they would be judged fot it by god after their dead.
interstingly enough they based this on excactly the same bible as "green apostle" gets his strict non violence on.

[Rosa Provokateur]

You see, there's a fundamental flaw in that, if we completely reject violence, do you think our opponents will too? Do you think the police will stop hitting people because those people are nonviolent?
No, time and time again, police and fascists have proven that they are perfectly capable of attacking peaceful people and they will continue to do so in future.
If we decide to be peaceful, we will only encourage them, because they won't have any difficulty attacking us.
Let the police and fascists do what they will, the fact that they'll continue in violence only proves to the world that we are justified in our beliefs; a system dependent on violent force in order to survive has no legitimacy.

Police are encouraged to beat us because we fight them but if we dont fight, dont run, and look them in the eye human-to-human they'll see that we and they arent that different nad that what their doing is wrong.

[Rosa Provokateur]

the bodily autonomy of women is a pretty big issues regarding the chrch and society as a whole, what positon do you hold on it? and by the church do you mean believers or all classes will/can benafit society as a whole?

non-violence is a tactic we can employ it where necessary, we also do not use violence indiscriminately but it is a tried and tested method of antifascism (cable street, lewisham, etc etc) we reply in like with force, that is true but to those who spread the destruction of our societies and our class, if violence will stop them so be it. why is violence bad and being hurt good? we are not talking metaphorically here you are saying i should allow myself to be physically beaten and that it will give me some moral high ground?

ill tell you what, imaging yourself in Russia atm, would you turn the other cheek to fascists and try to talk to them?
The problem with the pro-life movement is that they dont consider the life of the child after birth; these kids need a world with clean air, accessible health-care, a loving environment, good food, clothing, housing, all these things and more. We must work towards building a better place to live for them if we are going to bring them into this world. I advocate communities helping women who are unable to care for their children by themselves, I advocate caring for women who've been strained by their abortion, and I advocate loving women regardless of whether or not they've had an abortion.

Violence is bad because it destroys; it destroys human life, it destroys peoples health, it destroys people. By turning the other cheek you are refusing to conform to how the powers of the world do things, you are demonstrating that there is a better way and that our dream for society is that better way.

I dont know because I've never been put in that situation. I'd try to but if that didnt work, I'd do something crazy; I'd strip naked and start dancing like a chicken.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Anti-fascism is not about looking good for the press it's about effective struggle against fascists.


Right and to do that you need the people on your side and when will they see you, on the evening news in a report about the confrontation between antifa and the fascists; take that to your advantage by controlling their coverage, they wanted to get footage of antifa on a bloodspree but you can give them footage of antifa as the new civil rights movement.

[Sam_b]

Police are encouraged to beat us because we fight them but if we dont fight, dont run, and look them in the eye human-to-human they'll see that we and they arent that different nad that what their doing is wrong.

I see a lot of rubbish on this forum from some members but this is up there with the best of them. This comment is an insult to the many people who have died in police custody at the hands of the cops.

I'm not going to 'turn the other cheek' at the expense of the millions who died in the Holocaust, under the Khmer Rouge or at Srebrenica. Tell me, Green Apostle, was 'turning the other cheek' worth it there?

And please don't try the whole 'Jesus was a pacifist' line, the truth is he was far from it. If anything, he was a hypocrite.

"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" - Matthew 10:34

"For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household - Also Matthew 10:34

“He said to them, ‘But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.’” Luke 22:36

Chew on those for a while.

[jaffe]

Right and to do that you need the people on your side and when will they see you, on the evening news in a report about the confrontation between antifa and the fascists; take that to your advantage by controlling their coverage, they wanted to get footage of antifa on a bloodspree but you can give them footage of antifa as the new civil rights movement.

You we all should get beat up do nothing to protect ourselves and just stand by when others are getting attacked. You can't control what the media says. last time when dutch antifascists announced a peacefull demonstration the police lied to them lead them into parts were they even had forbid them to march. After that they all arrested them because they supposedly had stones in a bag. All media covered it the lies from the police so there goes your PC non violence looking good for the media. All people get shit from the media, even about the civil rights movement was lied when they were popular (and you shouldn't forget that not only a peacefully civil rights movement was effective for equal rights struggle in the USA). Oy yeah and one time that I and others was on a 'bloodspree' as you call it we recieved applause from 60 elderly people.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And please don't try the whole 'Jesus was a pacifist' line, the truth is he was far from it. If anything, he was a hypocrite.

Not to mention what he did to the moneylenders at the Temple!

[Dharma]

The less the fascists speak, the less their hateful message can spread and be practiced. Shut down those bastards!

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Sorry green apostle but your just bang out here.

I mean if violence saves lives and improves life be it short term or long term i support it. As for the media thing. Id rather get told im a naughty boy by some shitty newspaper then have to get used to a coffin.

Oh and all this moral highground stuff. Seriously what the fuck is this shit?

You know fucking damn well as does every other member on this fourm that when some tosser talks about "morals" he means doing what he wants people to do.

What amazes me is that (rightly so) no one gets away with "i think the problem today is the lack of people doing as i want them to do" but somone will be taken seriously in alot of things when they say "i think the problem today is a lack of morals".

We do not need that shit within the leftist movement.

[Rosa Provokateur]

I see a lot of rubbish on this forum from some members but this is up there with the best of them. This comment is an insult to the many people who have died in police custody at the hands of the cops.

I'm not going to 'turn the other cheek' at the expense of the millions who died in the Holocaust, under the Khmer Rouge or at Srebrenica. Tell me, Green Apostle, was 'turning the other cheek' worth it there?

And please don't try the whole 'Jesus was a pacifist' line, the truth is he was far from it. If anything, he was a hypocrite.

"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" - Matthew 10:34

"For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household - Also Matthew 10:34

“He said to them, ‘But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.’” Luke 22:36

Chew on those for a while.

I dont deny that police brutality exists or that there are officers that abuse their power but I dont believe theyre all like that and I say stay peaceful to win them over.

No but because of it, its now internationally recognized that anti-Semetism is wrong. Jewish people are protected more now because of it.

I dont believe in pacifism; pacifism says cower in the corner and run away, I say meet the enemy face-to-face and show him your strength by refusing to fight... not because you cant fight but because you choose not to.

We're all hypocrites and I'll grant that Jesus, who was a man, wasnt above hypocrisy himself. His message is a sword to those in power, it threatens their control. His message did put son against father and so forth, it rallied the young towards truth while their parents remained in worship of Ceaser. That final verse you quoted was a way of saying sell what you dont need and get what you do need in preperation.

[Fietsketting]

I dont deny that police brutality exists or that there are officers that abuse their power but I dont believe theyre all like that and I say stay peaceful to win them over.

And what do you do if their chief tells them to 'clear the demo away'?



I dont believe in pacifism; pacifism says cower in the corner and run away, I say meet the enemy face-to-face and show him your strength by refusing to fight... not because you cant fight but because you choose not to.

Yes but they come at you with baseball bats. Hard, wooden sticks, You probely seem em being used somewhere against a ball? Now imagine that ball being your head. Get the picture yet? :rolleyes:

[DreamWeaver]

Green Apostle, I understand why you go for pacifism, but the reality is quite different. I've seen riot police kick the shit out of tiny girls and have had a baton to the face on occasion, and adrenaline makes beasts out of the holiest cops even. They join riot police with a reason and combat us nearly weekly. Most of them hate us with a passion, and won't hesitate to fuck us up. You too will experience that ALL COPS ARE BASTARDS

[Holden Caulfield]

ALL COPS ARE BASTARDS
i disagree... most cops are bastards

[Patchd]

Let the police and fascists do what they will, the fact that they'll continue in violence only proves to the world that we are justified in our beliefs; a system dependent on violent force in order to survive has no legitimacy.

Police are encouraged to beat us because we fight them but if we dont fight, dont run, and look them in the eye human-to-human they'll see that we and they arent that different nad that what their doing is wrong.
Tell that to any victim of police brutality who were on the receiving end after they conducted a "peaceful" protest.

The amount of shit I've heard from the pigs even when you ask them if they like doing their job just justifies my hatred from them.

What you're proposing is basically this;
1) Let them beat us
2) It'll somehow portray to the rest of the working class that they are the ev1l 1ssss, despite the media almost always being on the side of the state forces.
3) ???
4) NO PROFIT

We show the working class that we are serious when we stand up for our beliefs physically, that being resisting them with tooth and nail. What hope have we got if we simply let them beat us down?



i disagree... most cops are bastards

I disagree, all cops are bastards institutionally, individually, I've met some quite nice coppers...but thats when they're not doing their job. When they're on their patrols, they may well pull a nice smiley face, but that same copper would be willing to beat down on your head with a baton at a protest too. But then...they would be "workers in uniform" in your eyes right? :p ...you know I love you though, despite me hatin on yer party ;)

[Holden Caulfield]

they would be "workers in uniform" in your eyes right?
due to my participation in certain orgs that stray away from that view, i cannot say i uphold the party line on that one... i just think some decent coppers exist, decent working class people who take a job because they need a secure(ish) income of money, the system/insistution does turn alot of them into self rightious jumped up bastards, rascists, power mad tossers etc but for a few it is still just a job with rules they must follow,

we are made out in the media often to be 'rioters' who need to be controlled for public safety and the 'common good', the media, as I, Gramsci and many others know, is extremely powerful in altering peoples perceptions

[Rosa Provokateur]

Green Apostle, I understand why you go for pacifism, but the reality is quite different. I've seen riot police kick the shit out of tiny girls and have had a baton to the face on occasion, and adrenaline makes beasts out of the holiest cops even.

Then get in between the girl and the cop. No matter their adrenaline, I'll ware them down through my refusal to fight.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Then get in between the girl and the cop. No matter their adrenaline, I'll ware them down through my refusal to fight.

Will that be before or after you wake up in a pool of your own blood?

[Sasha]

I'll ware them down through my refusal to fight.

and then after that you will turn water in to wine and split the red sea right?

sorry, its an cheap shot i know, but i couldn't help myself...

[Holden Caulfield]

Will that be before or after you wake up in a pool of your own blood?

he has a point, what is achieved by not fighting apart from getting your arse kicked? and dont say fighting brings me down to the level of my enemies, try to justify the point,

[Patchd]

due to my participation in certain orgs that stray away from that view, i cannot say i uphold the party line on that one... i just think some decent coppers exist, decent working class people who take a job because they need a secure(ish) income of money, the system/insistution does turn alot of them into self rightious jumped up bastards, rascists, power mad tossers etc but for a few it is still just a job with rules they must follow,
Most definitely, but the point is not whether or not the copper who is beating down on the workers is a nice individual or not. To a man or woman on the ground, that wouldn't make a difference.


we are made out in the media often to be 'rioters' who need to be controlled for public safety and the 'common good', the media, as I, Gramsci and many others know, is extremely powerful in altering peoples perceptions
I agree, yet being a communist or an anarchist usually have those tags anyway, we're seen as being "extremists", which I guess we somewhat are. The media, being a means of controlling or at least, swaying society's opinions, will always portray us in a negative light as long as it is working for the capitalists. In addition, opposition towards the police force isn't usually mentioned in the media anyway.

[Omi]

I wonder if Green Apostle has ever seen a riot cop or bonehead in real life...:confused:

[Holden Caulfield]

I wonder if Green Apostle has ever seen a riot cop or bonehead in real life...:confused:
who cares, we are trying to win him round with consistant and coherant arguments not just take side swipes at the guy,

[An archist]

Then get in between the girl and the cop. No matter their adrenaline, I'll ware them down through my refusal to fight.

I have a friend who used to consider herself a pacifist. Then one night we were in a squat when it got attacked by 20 boneheads and I can assure you, she was throwing bottles as hard as everyone else.
My point is, where you ever in such a situation? Were you ever faced with violence and did you stop it by radical non-violence?

[Omi]

who cares, we are trying to win him round with consistant and coherant arguments not just take side swipes at the guy,

No this was meant like the example An archist provided us with, not like a side swipe, though I must admit that my choise of words was rather poor maybe. English is not my first language;).

[Fietsketting]

and then after that you will turn water in to wine and split the red sea right?

sorry, its an cheap shot i know, but i couldn't help myself...

Amusing non the less ;)

[Sasha]

who cares, we are trying to win him round with consistant and coherant arguments

you might, i am just getting realy frustrated by this shit.
i'm here to discus anti-fascism, not pacifism and like i already said in a lot of other threads being popluted by "green apostle" i think it fucks up the atmosphere here.
If you want to "win him round with consistant and coherant arguments" open an nice pacifism vs violence vs all options open thread (prefabily in an other more suitable section, and i might even join in from time to time) but as the moderator i think you have an obligation to adress our griefiances seriouly. There is more to being an moderator than check if no'one breaks the board rules, it also involves helping in keeping the threads kind of on-topic and protect the community, keep it "liveable" and welcoming.
Sure "green apostle" has the right to be an pacifist, and sure he has the right to express that view, but we also have the right to properly discuss anti-facism here and that is now getting seriously hinderd.
so fucking act.

[Honggweilo]

i disagree... most cops are bastards
offtopic: i still need to find a MCAB tag or tattoo somewhere, that will totally make my day :lol:

[DreamWeaver]

Once a cop puts on his uniform he is no longer an individual. Therefore, acab. Now on the more ontopic side of things; the downside of having a black block and antifa with banners doing the 'no platform'-thing is that you could scare off any bystanders who would normally be more than willing to clean the streets of Nazi scum. What are your ideas on the levels of antifascism that is being used?

[An archist]

That's another point, black block and no platform aren't the same, in fact there's another thread here about a nationalist debate we blocked a few weeks ago. There were some masked up people there, but the majority were regular (leftwing) students. So it's perfectly possible to use a no-platform tactic while not 'offending' people by black block tactics.

[Rosa Provokateur]

he has a point, what is achieved by not fighting apart from getting your arse kicked? and dont say fighting brings me down to the level of my enemies, try to justify the point,

By not fighting, I refuse to conform to how the rest of the world does things. I want to abolish the state and to do so I've got to be an example of the way of life that I'm fighting for, that way of life involves a rejection of violent force to achieve my goals.

[Rosa Provokateur]

I have a friend who used to consider herself a pacifist. Then one night we were in a squat when it got attacked by 20 boneheads and I can assure you, she was throwing bottles as hard as everyone else.
My point is, where you ever in such a situation? Were you ever faced with violence and did you stop it by radical non-violence?

Yeah; I was assaulted at school and instead of throwing a punch, I gave the guy a hug. When I hugged him he didnt know how to react and it mentally disarmed him from fighting.

[Holden Caulfield]

By not fighting, I refuse to conform to how the rest of the world does things. I want to abolish the state and to do so I've got to be an example of the way of life that I'm fighting for, that way of life involves a rejection of violent force to achieve my goals.how do you plan to over throw the state, name me one sucessful struggle in which pacifism has been used and i will show you the militants who really achieved the victory but were ignored by the bourgeois, i suppose what im trying to say is that it is a ruling class ideology, non violence means that the workers can be controlled with greater ease and kept away from militant and revolutionary groups


Yeah; I was assaulted at school and instead of throwing a punch, I gave the guy a hug. When I hugged him he didnt know how to react and it mentally disarmed him from fighting.
if that was me i would punch you more, no offence you seem like a nice guy but that is retarded

[jaffe]

Once a cop puts on his uniform he is no longer an individual. Therefore, acab. Now on the more ontopic side of things; the downside of having a black block and antifa with banners doing the 'no platform'-thing is that you could scare off any bystanders who would normally be more than willing to clean the streets of Nazi scum. What are your ideas on the levels of antifascism that is being used?

I've never encountered such problems because most of the times I don't look like a black block.



Yeah; I was assaulted at school and instead of throwing a punch, I gave the guy a hug. When I hugged him he didnt know how to react and it mentally disarmed him from fighting.

are your sure it was actually a punch?;)

And just like Psycho did I want you to reccomend to read How nonviolence protects the state by Peter Gelderloos. A lot of moralistic lines you use will be handled in that book.

[An archist]

Yeah; I was assaulted at school and instead of throwing a punch, I gave the guy a hug. When I hugged him he didnt know how to react and it mentally disarmed him from fighting.

That's actually quite funny:lol:. And yeah, I can imagine that in those situations it might be a good tactic, but seriously, when a couple of boneheads come to attack you and you out to hug them, they will attack you before they even realise you're trying to hug them. If you try to hug a cop who's trying to hit someone, s/he'll probably smack you down and arrest you for assault.

[Junius]

http://bikinibottom.blogsport.de/images/israeldemo.jpg

[Holden Caulfield]

http://bikinibottom.blogsport.de/images/israeldemo.jpg
point being...?

[Junius]

The point that anti-fascism plays into the hands of this or that ruling class. Sometimes they support an unpopular side, sometimes they support the popular side. Either way, the philosophy of anti-fascism is at best ambivalent support for democracy and the ruling class. Be it the anti-Germans supporting Israel, or various anti-fascists supporting the Labour Party in the UK, or the various anti-fascists supporting Stalin, and the Allies whilst they were putting down workers movements in Italy. Or the actions of the anti-fascists in Spain.

Facism/Antifascism. (http://www.spunk.org/texts/antifasc/sp000833.htm)

:)

Edit: However, this over-emphasizes the political nature of anti-fascism. Today, it appears little more than football hooliganism. Must be 'fun' and all to 'bash the fash', but not related to class struggle in the slightest.

[Holden Caulfield]

The point that anti-fascism plays into the hands of this or that ruling class. Sometimes they support an unpopular side, sometimes they support the popular side. Either way, the philosophy of anti-fascism is at best ambivalent support for democracy and the ruling class. Be it the anti-Germans supporting Israel, or various anti-fascists supporting the Labour Party in the UK, or the various anti-fascists supporting Stalin, and the Allies whilst they were putting down workers movements in Italy. Or the actions of the anti-fascists in Spain.


the use of Antifascist style flags etc is a shameless tactic used by many groups including national socialists in order to try and hide their true colours and manipulate decent people to support their own agendas, and that picture proves nothing. Antifascism is a movement, it has no other agenda apart from fighting a obstacle to the class struggle, and an obstacle which seeks to divide and weaken the working class in order to defend ultr-nationalists and the capitalist classes.

Antifascism is not merely football hooliganism against fascists, it is a movement committed to combatting fascism as part of the class struggle. Antifascists seek to destroy the state opression and to do this fascism needs to be adressed.

antifascism is hardly football hooliganism, your attitude is the same attitude that said 'after Hilter us'.

Go back to criticising from your armchair, have a nap, ill wake you up when the revolution comes

[Junius]

the use of Antifascist style flags etc is a shameless tactic used by many groups including national socialists in order to try and hide their true colours and manipulate decent people to support their own agendas, and that picture proves nothing.The flag illustrated a point; that anti-fascists have often been on one side of the ruling class in opposing this or that workers movements. I think it would be just as ironic if they held a Palestinian flag.


Antifascism is a movement, it has no other agenda apart from fighting a obstacle to the class struggle, and an obstacle which seeks to divide and weaken the working class in order to defend ultr-nationalists and the capitalist classes.I see you're from the UK.

Simple question:

Whom divides the working class more - the Labour party or a minority party (i.e. the BNP)?

Which party has whipped up the most anti-Muslim hysteria in support of its imperialist motives? Which party has actually invaded a country?

Which is therefore the bigger enemy?

Simple questions for a simple mind.


Antifascism is not merely football hooliganism against fascists, it is a movement committed to combatting fascism as part of the class struggle. Beating people up has nothing to do with class struggle. Get a clue.


Antifascists seek to destroy the state opression and to do this fascism needs to be adressed. Then I presume you will be beating up Labour MPs, since Labour is the organization which has introduced the most appalling anti-immigrant laws. Right?

And, unlike the BNP, the Labour party actually is part of the state apparatus, or at least has a monopoly of it.


antifascism is hardly football hooliganism, your attitude is the same attitude that said 'after Hilter us'. What are you saying?


Go back to criticising from your armchair, have a nap, ill wake you up when the revolution comesHave you ever even been in a strike? A case of the pot calling the kettle black, I think. Also, as a moderator you should not be flaming members for expressing their views. Incidentally, I don't particularly care whether you have been on strike or not, or whether you work 10 hour days. Nor am I going to exude a 'prolier-than-thou' attitude. This is an internet forum, with the specific purpose of debating - calling someone an 'armchair' socialist is just trying to avoid the debate. Nice try, however.

The same topic was raised on libcom, I will post responses made there:

Devrim:


I don't know if you realize Paul, but we had fascist ministers in the coalition in the last government, and I expect to have them in the next one. Before you say that the fascists here are not as serious as the BNP, I will just give you a little information about them.

I will start with a quote from their late leader:

Turks do not have any friend or ally other than other Turks. Turks! turn to your roots. Our words are to those that have Turkish ancestry and are Turks.... Those that have torn down this nation are Greek, Armenian and Jew traitors, and Kurdish, Bosnian and Albanians... How can you, as a Turk, tolerate these dirty minorities. Remove from within the Armenians and Kurds and all Turkish enemies.

If that doesn't sound too serious, I will quote Wiki:

Wiki wrote:
Human rights experts in Turkey make the organization responsible for more than 4,000 murders, primarily of Kurds, Turkish leftists, and progressive journalists and union leaders. One of their deadliest acts was the organisation of the anti-Alevi pogrom in Kahramanmaraş in 1978 that left 111 people dead. Today, the Turkish army and special forces actively recruit MHP members to fight in special commando units in Turkey's war against PKK.Of course they could be exaggerating. After all, the state only prosecuted 220 of their members, and affiliates for 694 murders. I still think that it makes them a serious organization though.

In some universities people are forced to stand up when fascist leaders enter the room. I can really imagine that situation happening in Britain.

In the run up to the 12th September military coup, and left fought a virtual civil war against the fascists resulting in an average death toll of thirty per day in Isstanbul alone. One important thing was though that the left then, as now, was completely separated from the working class.

Oh, and by the way my city, and this country are controlled by AKP (the Islamic party).http://libcom.org/sites/all/themes/libcomz/images/smileys/wink.gifDemogorgan303:


One interesting point that has been made on this thread, several times is that we are in competition with the BNP for the hearts and minds of the working class.

This seems to me to present the working class as some kind of unformed mass waiting for someone like the BNP or us to impress ideas onto it. Ironically, this is a fundamentally Kautskyist /Leninist; approach to the question of class consciousness.

The working class is driven to struggle against capitalism because it must, simply in order to survive. In order for those struggles to succeed, its they must seek an ever greater unity within the class. It is this drive towards unity that contains the only force in society truly capable of standing up against the tide of racist filth that threatens to submerge us.

Fascism is just one of the many ideological weapons the bourgeoisie has at its disposal. It has been described here as the "worst enemy" of the working class. But it wasn't the fascists who drowned the German Revolution in blood, it was the Social Democrats. It wasn't just the fascists who walked through our streets in the 70s campaigning against black people who steal British workers jobs - it was the trade unions.

Fascism can only take root when the working class has been completely crushed and defeated. The Italian Left pointed out that fascism and leftism are nothing less than the right and left fists of the bourgeoisie. The left fogs our consciousness, disperses our struggles, dulls our capacity to resists - the right is the knock-out punch, physically crushing the proletariat after the left has done its job of disorientating us.

The proletariat must fight against capitalism as a whole. Aligning with this or that faction of the bourgeoisie to fight against the evil of fascism only opens us up to the suffocating attacks of the left.Alf:


Has nothing been learned from Spain 36 and the second world war? Anti-fascism is a trap set by the democratic factions of capitalism. The worst product of fascism is anti-fascism" - Bordiga.

Communists should emphasise that the BNP is not some 'special danger' but a 'normal' capitalist party which is tied by a thousand links to the 'respectable' parties. The enemy of the working class is the capitalist state and the BNP is just one of its appendages.

Before anyone replies yes, but what do left communists do when the fascists are marching down their street, please recall that the clearest understanding of the fascism/anti-fascism trap was developed by the Italian communist party in the 20s, which had to defend its meetings from the Blackshirts with arms in hand, and whose militants were exiled, jailed, beaten and assassinated by the fascists, and tracked by the OVRA (secret police) across Europe. None of this persuaded them that the working class should surrender its autonomy to the anti-fascist bourgeois left. On the contrary, they always showed the way that the left paved the way for fascism, in Italy, Germany and Spain.These comrades make good points.

[An archist]

http://bikinibottom.blogsport.de/images/israeldemo.jpg

These are not your regular antifascists, they're anti-germans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Germans_(communist_current)

[Sasha]

working link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Germans_(communist_current)

looking at "left communist" his sig; "Against all Fatherlands!" a crowd he should be able to relate to :rolleyes:

[Holden Caulfield]

Which is therefore the bigger enemy?
who ever said fascism was ever a bigger threat than our bourgeois government? the reason we give fascism so much time here is because your in the antifascist forum!

to quote Demo


Fascism can only take root when the working class has been completely crushed and defeated
the attacks on the workers from the 1970's onwards, the defeat of the unions, deregulation, neo-liberalist policies that were continued by New Labour have been devastating and have been a betrayal of the working class by those who they traditionally saw as 'their' party (Labour). This has produced conditions where fascism, in the guise of the BNP (Tindall was a nazi and Griffin was NF, the leadership are fascists even if the party itself isnt openly), has been seen as an alternative to the major capitalist parties, and therefore they should be given some of our time.


Beating people up has nothing to do with class struggle. Get a clue.antifascism isnt just 'beating people up', the use of violence is a tactic to be utilised in certain situations, but we should not, would not and cannot beat up all those who support the BNP etc, as they are disillusioned workers for the most part.



Then I presume you will be beating up Labour MPs, since Labour is the organization which has introduced the most appalling anti-immigrant laws. Right?
antifascism, being what it says on the tin, is a movement to fight fascists, opressive laws brought in by the so called Labour government are fought through different channels i.e. myself being an active member of the Socialist Party.


A case of the pot calling the kettle black, I think. no i have no been on a strike myself i have not been a member of a union, i have been there in support of strikes. but that was not my point, my point was Left Communists are so quick to criticise by they seem to want to sit back and wait for the revolution to come to them. You guys dont even seem to like unions!



Also, as a moderator you should not be flaming members for expressing their views.
lifes a ***** isn't it, if you have a problem do something about it, its mod recall season you are more than welcome to have me recalled if you can (ask somebody in the CC)

[Sprinkles]

antifascism is hardly football hooliganism, your attitude is the same attitude that said 'after Hilter us'.

As you might know "Nach Hitler kommen wir" was the slogan of the Comintern during it's 3rd period when it was dominated by the Stalinists and was little more then a cover for the USSR's shameless realpolitik. It doesn't have anything to do with the communist-left position with regards to anti-fascism except as an opportunistic smear by people who try to denounce something as "ultra-left."


working link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Germans_(communist_current) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Germans_%28communist_current%29)

looking at "left communist" his sig; "Against all Fatherlands!" a crowd he should be able to relate to :rolleyes:

I had not figured you for the nationalist type and I had no idea anarchists supported Palestine in it's struggle for National Liberation either. But for what it's worth Anti-Deutsche has nothing to do with Left-communism.

[Sprinkles]

...my point was Left Communists are so quick to criticise by they seem to want to sit back and wait for the revolution to come to them.


Although it's a bit off-topic I wanted to add a constructive comment on this.

The communist-left position and conception of the party and it's role is different from the Trotskyist position. You might not agree with it, but it doesn't come from a puritanical attitude which refuses to budge until the great day will come.

It's more of a realization that a large part of the last century, especially following the proletariat's defeat after WW1 has been a period of profound reaction in which it had been crushed as a historical force. This translated in most communist mass-parties largely dissapearing or like the Stalinist CP only keeping their numbers up by accepting a large number of various Leftists and Social Democrats into their ranks.

The proletariat has only been reasserting itself sporadically since the latter half of the century with events in East Germany 1953, Hungary 1956, Novercherkassk 1962 and both Czechoslovakia and Paris in 1968. So it's only logical that the resulting increase in the interest for revolutionary ideas and the growth and subsequent activity of the communist-left movement has only been fairly modest.

If you're interested in the subject, Eclipse and Re-Emergence of the Communist Movement by Dauvé is a good and fairly short read.

http://libcom.org/library/eclipse-re-emergence-giles-dauve


You guys dont even seem to like unions!

You're in luck that I brought the CNT up again in the other thread then. :D

[Junius]

who ever said fascism was ever a bigger threat than our bourgeois government?

Well, according to antifa publications:

"After decades of underperforming, the far-right now poses a significant threat politically."

Under Nick Griffin, the BNP has become the most successful far right party in British history...

Do say "Everything changed since Griffin became leader." Don't say "If voting changed anything, they'd abolish it"

This isn't surprising - antifascists always want to exaggerate the threat of their opponents to justify their actions.


the attacks on the workers from the 1970's onwards, the defeat of the unions, deregulation, neo-liberalist policies that were continued by New Labour have been devastating and have been a betrayal of the working class by those who they traditionally saw as 'their' party (Labour).1. The Labour party has been 'betraying' the working class since WW2.

2. Unions are not defeated - plenty of government officials are former/current unionists and this serves the ruling class just fine. (Incidentally, many of the unions are very hostile against immigration, since they perceive that it threatens jobs).


This has produced conditions where fascism, in the guise of the BNP (Tindall was a nazi and Griffin was NF, the leadership are fascists even if the party itself isnt openly), has been seen as an alternative to the major capitalist parties, and therefore they should be given some of our time. No, the BNP is more of a popularist right wing party...which is nothing new.


antifascism isnt just 'beating people up', the use of violence is a tactic to be utilised in certain situations, but we should not, would not and cannot beat up all those who support the BNP etc, as they are disillusioned workers for the most part.Ah, so you beat up one portion of the fascists and tell the rest to vote Labour?


antifascism, being what it says on the tin, is a movement to fight fascists, opressive laws brought in by the so called Labour government are fought through different channels i.e. myself being an active member of the Socialist Party. I think you have a fundamentally wrong perception of how fascists come to power. You seem to think that they suddenly drop in from the sky. That's never happened and will never happen.


no i have no been on a strike myself i have not been a member of a union, i have been there in support of strikes. but that was not my point, my point was Left Communists are so quick to criticise by they seem to want to sit back and wait for the revolution to come to them. This isn't much of a criticism. At the very least, Left-Communist movements have been part of revolutionary movements. Anti-fascists have been involved in crushing them, or serving this or that ruling class.

The strike against the Kapp Putch being an example - after betraying the German and international working class by supporting WW1 and opposing revolutionary action by the likes of Luxemburg, Ebert called to the workers to oppose the Putch - in the name of democracy of course! This was after he had employed fascists to fight the worker's movement. So, we see in this example, that both fascism and anti-fascism served the real enemy - the social democrats.


You guys dont even seem to like unions!Join one and you might too.


lifes a ***** isn't it, if you have a problem do something about it, its mod recall season you are more than welcome to have me recalled if you can (ask somebody in the CC)No, I think an idiotic forum deserves...guess.


working link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Germans_(communist_current) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Germans_%28communist_current%29)

looking at "left communist" his sig; "Against all Fatherlands!" a crowd he should be able to relate to :rolleyes:

1. Against all fatherlands means...being against all fatherlands. Israel , you know, is a nation. Must be a foreign concept to antifascists since they have historically aligned with one nation over another, but 'workers have no country' and all that. Sort of a 'fundamental' 'concept' to 'communism.'

2. I'm female.

[black magick hustla]

Go back to criticising from your armchair, have a nap, ill wake you up when the revolution comes

tbh i doubt you "bash the fash". not to be an asshole but you seem too small and skinny to be against nazi football hooligans. nothing wrong with being small and skinny, but it is wrong when you go all macho about your revolutionary cred when dealing with the fascists in the streets.

[An archist]

tbh i doubt you "bash the fash". not to be an asshole but you seem too small and skinny to be against nazi football hooligans. nothing wrong with being small and skinny, but it is wrong when you go all macho about your revolutionary cred when dealing with the fascists in the streets.

-Far from all fascists are big football hooligan types.
-Far from all big football hooligan types are good fighters.

[Holden Caulfield]

Well, according to antifa publications... bla bla bla
if i supposidly cant even answer your questions it seems strange that you post antifa quotes that having nothing to do with the statement they are in answer to, what is even wrong with those claims you quoted?



1. The Labour party has been 'betraying' the working class since WW2.
yes and... again doesn't answer the point the workers still supported Labour until Blair carried on Thatchters policies and at this point they started to drift away the party in noticable numbers, and swell the ranks of fringe parties of the BNP etc



No, the BNP is more of a popularist right wing party...which is nothing new.
they are self confessed 'white nationalists' who play on the crisis of capitalism and the rascist policies of the governing body to help spread fascism, populist yes, opportunist yes, but that to be honest makes them more of a danger unlike say the NF were


Ah, so you beat up one portion of the fascists and tell the rest to vote Labour?
yes your fucking right what a genius, the mainly anarchist antifa are actually just telling folk to vote labour, stop putting up such strawman arguements, not one of your points has even adressed my point it is aimed at, instead you make stupid remarks, therefore you are a 'jerk off'



I think you have a fundamentally wrong perception of how fascists come to power. You seem to think that they suddenly drop in from the sky. That's never happened and will never happen.
again baseless, i am aware of the nature and the origings of fascism, be it another face of capitalism or anything else it is a barrier to the class struggle and should be fough against as well as the main bourgeois parties! look at Russia or Italy for a great example of how hard it is to fight the class struggle with out a strong antifascist movement. its hard to stand there criticising when you might get stabbed to death,



The strike against the Kapp Putch being an example... bla bla bla
proves nothing other than the workers are manipulated by the SDP, of course they will use the workers to support their class, they willingly supported WW1 for fucks sake. Look at the arming of the Bolsheviks against Kornilov for the other side of the coin, a coherant antifafascist trend can be and is of great use in the class struggle.



Must be a foreign concept to antifascists since they have historically aligned with one nation over another,
some have yes, through manipulation and hegemony over their society and therefore their views, but workers have also historically sided with one nation over another, and workers have historically sided with nazis who committed atrocoties, and workers have also sided with Napoleon etc etc etc. your points are weak and merely baseless assertions from your narrow little mind

[Holden Caulfield]

tbh i doubt you "bash the fash". not to be an asshole but you seem too small and skinny to be against nazi football hooligans. nothing wrong with being small and skinny, but it is wrong when you go all macho about your revolutionary cred when dealing with the fascists in the streets.

how can i a who is "small and skinny" ever fight a state or a fascist on my own... i might as well give up now,

viva capitalism!

i dont go all macho about my 'revolutionary cred', neither do i attest to be hard as fuck, but i will do my bit as a member of an antifascist organisation, time and time again i tell people to be careful and that a arse kicking for a good cause achieves nothing. its not like i go up to every nazi i see and try to kick the shit out of them in the street,

and this is obvious, have some sense for fucks sake

[Sasha]

2. I'm female.
my apolegies, not used to females in this section. my bad, appolegies again.


1. Against all fatherlands means...being against all fatherlands. Israel , you know, is a nation. Must be a foreign concept to antifascists since they have historically aligned with one nation over another, but 'workers have no country' and all that. Sort of a 'fundamental' 'concept' to 'communism.'

funny thing to notice that the anti-germans started out on the same principles, good to see you at least guard the true communist line :rolleyes:

you know, its strange, you say that i as an anti-fascist will be "historically aligned with one nation over another" and you use the israel-pallestina conflict again and again as an example but you didn't yet ask my/our position in that conflict.
since i, as most antifa outside germany, are mostly anarchist influenced i reject states and borders so the only group in the region i work with on an regular basis is the group "anarchists against walls" (http://www.awalls.org/) not your avarage nationalist group.
But since i also have empathy, a social hearth and don't sit comfertably in my ivory tower i will support any chanche for the pallestinans if they get their own liveble state and dont have suffer anymore under an murderous occupation. yes even if that is against the "fundamental concept of communism".
i'll fight for an better tomorow and a better today. And if that makes me an impirialist anti-revolutionary lackey you can shove that revolution of yours....