Bash the fash?

[spartafc]

What do members think of the use of violence or physical confrontation with fascists in order to combat the organisation and propagation of fascist ideas? Can such actions be considered justified? And if so - on what basis do you believe them to be so?

All thoughts welcomed. I'm asking us to discuss the concept of confrontation - not individual examples/cases of members doing so.

[C_Rasmussen]

Well naturally if you see a skinhead beat the fucking shit out of them because they're nothing more then scum of the Earth that have no business even living in the first place. Same holds slightly lighter though for conservatives who can at least keep shut.

[spartafc]

Well naturally if you see a skinhead beat the fucking shit out of them because they're nothing more then scum of the Earth that have no business even living in the first place. Same holds slightly lighter though for conservatives who can at least keep shut.

A fine example of your subtle debating style there.
You're suggesting that anti-fascists go around beating up skinheads? But not conservatives - at least not the ones who aren't active?
Any particular rationale for you believing this to be true?

[Commie Rat]

I been recently verballay pistol whipped by aa couple menbers that Skinheads are not Nazi (not all the time anywyas)

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by C_Rasmussen@Dec 19 2005, 09:46 PM
Well naturally if you see a skinhead beat the fucking shit out of them because they're nothing more then scum of the Earth that have no business even living in the first place.

i really hope you DONT do this. if you see a NAZI, then yes, DO THIS. however, not all skinheads are racists. skinhead is a mix of working class culture with ska and reggae. it has nothing to do with nazism or racism. there are also lots of anti fascist skinhead groups such as the SHARP and the RASH. look them up.

To the topic, yes violence is ALWAYS justified against fascists. they want to limit everyones rights but their own and they must be stopped at all costs. they are not a joke or a novelty as lots of people think today. they still have the power to play off of the class system and convince people of their bullshit. no sympathy for those bastards.

[Comrade Marcel]

Taking in to account what nate said - and the fact that not all racists advertise it anyways (suit and ties, third positionists) - militant opposition and non-passive resistance to neo-nazis and fascists is tried, tested and true. I have no idea why this is even up for discussion here. If you want to use non-violence to oppose fascism, go stand with the liberal and bourgeois activists and see how little actually gets done for the people and the communities that are actually affected by it. Surface and superficial tolerance stances only serve to legitamize these ideologies.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Violent confrontation with fascists, is like nate and Comrade Marcel pointed out, the only effective tactic. However, people should always be sensible about such an action. If you singlehandedly try to combat a group of fascists, you'll get battered, if not killed. So confrontation with fascists should be well organised and done by large groups of leftists.

The tactics of the Red Front Fighters' League, the militant branch of the German Communist Party are very interesting and this article is a good read -- Losing the Battle of the Streets -- Reflections on the KPD 1930-33 January 29, 2005 by RedStar2000 -- that is the type of confrontation that should be mounted against fascism.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by spartafc@Dec 19 2005, 06:17 PM
What do members think of the use of violence or physical confrontation with fascists in order to combat the organisation and propagation of fascist ideas? Can such actions be considered justified? And if so - on what basis do you believe them to be so?

All thoughts welcomed. I'm asking us to discuss the concept of confrontation - not individual examples/cases of members doing so.

To misappropriate a saying of British colonials, if you give them an inch they will take a mile. So let's not give them one inch, by any means neccesary.

[The Grey Blur]

Any confrontation with Fascists or White Nationalists should be highly-organized and a statement explaining why Fascism is such a dangerous ideology should be issued or leaflets posted.

If you just go about in a gang and start attacking Fascists/WNs you'll

1) Be killed
2) Give communists/ socialists/ anarchists a bad name
3) Alienate the working-class

Or at least that is what recent history has shown us

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by spartafc@Dec 20 2005, 12:17 AM
What do members think of the use of violence or physical confrontation with fascists in order to combat the organisation and propagation of fascist ideas? Can such actions be considered justified? And if so - on what basis do you believe them to be so?

I don't think we can combat fascism in any other way, confrontation is the only form of anti-fascism that will ever work.

How can this be justified? well preventing the spread of such a bigoted anti-working class ideals justifies the use of violence, and in most cases killing.

Without confrontation, things will just get worse.

Antifa

*Moved to Anti-Fascism*

[RASH chris]

Originally posted by C_Rasmussen@Dec 20 2005, 01:46 AM
Well naturally if you see a skinhead beat the fucking shit out of them because they're nothing more then scum of the Earth that have no business even living in the first place. Same holds slightly lighter though for conservatives who can at least keep shut.

Gonna beat up this skinhead? How about the four or five other skinheads who post on this website?

Fascism must be combatted physicaly and politically. One without the other will just plain fail.

But there are a number of situations one might find themselves in where they might engage in anti-fascism.

The first being some sort of organized rally. These are usually hosted by more liberal groups like the SPLC. However you will usually find a militant contingent there, usually comprised of people from Anti-Racist Action (or Anti-Fascist Action for the Euros), SHARP (skinheads against racial prejudice), and RASH (red and anarchist skinheads). You've got to make it clear that, amidst the bourgeois liberals you are militant revolutionaries (i.e. combatting fascism politically). And you should beat the fascists up should the opportunity present itself.

The second being on the street, where you might encounter individual fascists or crews. Obviously, you're going to want to determine what to do based on your comfor level. But its worthless to try and engage them in intelligent conversation. If you can beat them up...do it...if not...don't let them know you're a commie.

[C_Rasmussen]

I really hope you guys know what I meant when I said that <_<.

[RASH chris]

Originally posted by C_Rasmussen@Dec 21 2005, 02:18 AM
I really hope you guys know what I meant when I said that <_<.

So you think its ok not to differentiate between real skinheads and nazis who steal the fashion? By calling nazis "skinheads" you are only helping to further the notion that nazis and skinheads are one in the same.

[LA GUERRA OLVIDADA]

What are skinheads if they&#39;re not Nazis? I actually don&#39;t know.. Is it just a style?

I know there are supposedly "non-racist" skinheads, who are usually very into segregation and keeping their race clean and such.. And usually will throw around phrases like "Heritage not Hate"

[Xvall]

I&#39;m sure everyone knows my policy on the matter, but here goes anyways.

What do members think of the use of violence or physical confrontation with fascists in order to combat the organisation and propagation of fascist ideas?

I love the idea. I have no problems with it whatsoever and support it whenever you can get away with it.

Can such actions be considered justified? And if so - on what basis do you believe them to be so?

To me. Some would consider me a sociopath, though, in that I have my own set of codes that I sometimes follow. I think it&#39;s fine because fascists have proven (at least to me) to be unchangable by any conventional means. Logic will not persuade them that they shouldn&#39;t advocate a "racial holy war". It&#39;s not simply a matter of belief, though. I specifically want fascists eliminated because they are a threat to me and everything I stand for. I don&#39;t necessarily think that some 12 year old who thinks Hitler is cool should have his brains blown out. But these "grown up" fascists that enjoy marauding around assaulting people like me and consider it to be ok are unacceptable to me. I can&#39;t say I feel the least bit sorry when such individuals are assaulted or killed; probably because they would feel the same way about me.

You&#39;re suggesting that anti-fascists go around beating up skinheads? But not conservatives - at least not the ones who aren&#39;t active?

Me reason, at least, is that Conservatives (in general) don&#39;t pose nearly as big of a threat when they lack power. I rarely if ever hear about "republican gangs" going around and beating people up, at least around here. If a conservative sees me in a dark alley, they probably won&#39;t do anything to me, because they don&#39;t even know what my beliefs are. Even if they did, I imagine that their first throught wouldn&#39;t be to beat me to death. If a neo-nazi sees me in an alley, I wouldn&#39;t put it past him to attack me or attempt to kill me.

Rage Against the Machine:

If you just go about in a gang and start attacking Fascists/WNs you&#39;ll

1) Be killed
2) Give communists/ socialists/ anarchists a bad name
3) Alienate the working-class

Or at least that is what recent history has shown us

I&#39;m not entirely sure what you&#39;re talking about. I don&#39;t know of any recent history that involved socialists or communists organizing gangs and assaulting fascists. I wouldn&#39;t be too worried about socialism or anarchism&#39;s name, as it is already considered akin to Satanism by a good deal of people. Being killed, though, is a good point and a precaution anyone considering engaging in physical conflict with fascists should be aware of.

Conscerning Rammussen&#39;s post, I think he was talking specifically about neo-nazis and the like. I highly doubt that he would assault someone just on the basis of being bald.

So you think its ok not to differentiate between real skinheads and nazis who steal the fashion? By calling nazis "skinheads" you are only helping to further the notion that nazis and skinheads are one in the same.

Skinhead is a word that very few people know the origin of. Indeed, you are correct, but you should understand that here, especially in America, the term "skinhead" has become almost completely synonnomous with "neo-nazi". It&#39;s like when someone says "these punks trashed my car&#33;". In all likelyhood, they aren&#39;t trying to say that members of the punk scene are violent and a burden to society - it&#39;s just that the meaning of the word "punk" here is more often associated with a definition along the lines of: "An unsavory ruffian".

Rammusen didn&#39;t try to offend you. I&#39;m not going to get angry at someone for referring to someone they don&#39;t like as a "bastard" even though there is nothing wrong with being born into wedlock, and that people whose parents were never married are no more or less likely to be mean or unkind.

[Xvall]

I know there are supposedly "non-racist" skinheads, who are usually very into segregation and keeping their race clean and such.. And usually will throw around phrases like "Heritage not Hate"

They&#39;re still racist. Just not violent.

This might be helpful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinhead

[Enragé]

Originally posted by spartafc@Dec 20 2005, 12:17 AM
What do members think of the use of violence or physical confrontation with fascists in order to combat the organisation and propagation of fascist ideas? Can such actions be considered justified? And if so - on what basis do you believe them to be so?

All thoughts welcomed. I&#39;m asking us to discuss the concept of confrontation - not individual examples/cases of members doing so.

only in direct defense (meaning if they, at least, threaten to beat you or anyone else up, not just because they walk around and you consider them being nazis a threat enough) of yourself and/or other people. And there&#39;s a difference between just hitting them once or twice and beating them into a pulp.

[Enragé]

you should ofcourse block the roads if they march and stuff like that, something which would increase the likelyhood of them starting a fight

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+Dec 28 2005, 09:54 AM--> (NewKindOfSoldier @ Dec 28 2005, 09:54 AM)

spartafc

@Dec 20 2005, 12:17 AM
What do members think of the use of violence or physical confrontation with fascists in order to combat the organisation and propagation of fascist ideas? Can such actions be considered justified? And if so - on what basis do you believe them to be so?

All thoughts welcomed. I&#39;m asking us to discuss the concept of confrontation - not individual examples/cases of members doing so.

only in direct defense (meaning if they, at least, threaten to beat you or anyone else up, not just because they walk around and you consider them being nazis a threat enough) of yourself and/or other people. And there&#39;s a difference between just hitting them once or twice and beating them into a pulp. [/b]

why is them just being a nazi not enough for people to take militant action against them?

[Enragé]

well if you mean by militant beatin them into a pulp its because

a) makes us look bad
and
b) could radicalise people who hang around nazis but who are not that political (people who can be "saved")

the whole point is that some nazis can change, and by beating them up without a reason would only harden their prejudice and stuff like that.

Block the roads, prevent them from spewing their hate in public, but dont kick their asses unless they try to kick yours.