Results 41 to 60 of 111
I love it when words like 'nazi/fascist-sympathiser!' are used to describe people who simply don't agree with the notion that to deal with fascists you need to KILL THEM ALL WITH GUNS! WIPE THEM OUT! SCUM! MUTHAFUCKAS MUST DIE! BANG BANG BANG! THEY ARE THE ENEMY!
It's profoundly and utterly stupid and yet so glaringly ironic and up its own arse that it can make you marvel at the beauty of human delusion. You cannot fight fire with fire.
What do you intend to do, all you gun totting nutters, after you wipe out the fascists and the nazi-sympathisers? Shoot yourself in the head? Because if you look up the definition of fascism, you'll find that after accomplishing your glorious mass genoside, you are a fascist, & in the most absurd and paradoxically moronic way that it's possible to be one, come to that.
Fascism is an ideology based on the supremacy of the state and the state as an organism formulated by Benito Mussolini in year 1919. ~BEEP~
Hence, one could indeed criticise antifa for an inefficient, counter-productive strategy, but they have a whole other ideological foundation.
As soon as fascists organize, they are recognizing the stakes of physical violence. What separates us from them is that even if we strike first in a literal sense, they initiated the conflict because without fascism there would be no need for antifa. By adopting the fascist mentality, they are striking a blow at human freedom, equality, and justice. If you are physically able, it is your duty to defend those values.
I am wary about posting this lest *they* read this and discover my tactics, but what I've found is that I like to find two very powerful fashy groups and help them hate each other. They will eventually eliminate each other. I do not have to beat the shit out of them at all. They are more prone to violently attacking anyway.
Besides, I try to avoid direct conflict. Not only am I female and about 5 feet tall - I still think I could hold my own - but truthfully I don't like to even touch them.
Innumerable discussion circles are knit together by mobile people who carry opinions from one to another, and struggle for the power of larger command. - C Wright Mills, The Power Elite
see, but the thing is, there is a BIG difference between "kicking the shit out of fascists" and shutting down their hateful rallies.
I think beating up fascists is unacceptable.
Self-defense, though, or defense of others, is mandatory.
The people that argue that we need to keep this high moral ground are completely right. People do not understand leftism. They hear "anarchy" and think completely destructive chaos, living like animals, killing, etc. I have gotten this too many times. So, when we beat up fascists without provocation, we are just feeding into this negative, stereotypical image.
We want people to be enlightened, right? We want them to see what being a leftist is about... And violence does not attract the everyday person, those people that we want to reach out to.
I think a "fight them, or dont fight them" is misguided. I think a multi-faceted appraoch is more appropriate.
Basically, of course we dont want to be fascists like the, so we there is the space to engage with them and challenge them on their beliefs, then by all means we do that. That is what we should sim for. But it is ludicrious to think that that is the only way, or the only way we should do it.
So whats this self-defence thing then? Well, indeed few here would disagree that if a fascist attacked, one is within theirs rights to fight back. But really, i think there is more to it.
I think think the main point of contention relates to what a fascist might say. As if they do threaten to actually attack people, I think there is a precident to attack them. And if they are known to attack people, then i think the precident holds. Just like in class war, self-defence is not egoist.
So yeah, lets the fucks say what they want, to a point. Threats, though not automatically neccessarily a point for self defence, still has a legitismacy. If a fascist said that to me, especially as a non-white anarchist type, i would not take it as a joke. And if it is known a certain fascist indeed has undertaken attacks upon someone [that isnt a nazi that is, hehe], theres nothing wrong with beating them up.
Of course not all fascists act in the same way, but i am more specifically talking about boneheads, who have a specific agender of violence and machismo. Talking is unlikely to do shit, so meet their violence, and defeat them.
Though not a perfect example, the creation of the SHARPies in the US was possibly the main factor in defeating the nazis on the street. Hell, in one case the lead singer of a nazi band was shot and that smashed the scene in that city...
[formerly Cthenthar]
Revolutionaries don't spend all day on a messageboard. Action is realisation of the polemic.
"When the lie returns to the mouth of the powerful, our voice of fire will speak again." - quote EZLN
“Development develops inequality.” ― Eduardo Galeano, Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent
What is that quote about debating fascists? Make sure to outnumber them 3 to 1, because they aren't interested in debate...
If fascists were happy to hold peaceful rallies, hand out leaflets wanting to be elected to parliament (sort of like a lot of "socialist" types...), then I wouldn't be so adverse to letting them be.
But they don't do that do they. No, they attack non-whites, they attack leftists, they attack queers and so on. They spread hateful propaganda, they promote violence against "innocents" (non-whites, non-heterosexuals, anyone who isn't "normal"), and are generally scum...
So, it shouldn't come as a surprise to them if they do these sorts of things and people retaliate...
Anti-Fa. Because the only good fascist is a dead one.
(See ABB, and Anti-Fa in Russia on why Anti-Fa is needed http://abb.hardcore.lt/joomla/index.php?op...temid=56#faq125 )
Of course fascists don't hand out leaflets. The entire basis of fascism is in bigoted violence and scapegoating.
If they did hand out leaflets and refrain from violence, then violence would not be an acceptable tactic for fighting them. They choose the stakes. They have chosen violence. So be it.
How many immigrants, gays, or minorities actually sanction, promote, condone, request, or even know about anti-fascist attacks? Because if all of these attempts to keep the fascists or Nazis quiet were done without even consulting with the people who are personally the most threatened by them it smacks of hobbyist vanguardism.
Because human rights aren't a tit-for-tat business. The fact that racists/fascists/whatever may have no intention of respecting our rights is irrelevent to the question of their own social enfranchisement.
Someone who actually goes around attacking other people obviously needs to be stopped and society has every right to defend itself. Buteven those people do not sacrifice their humanity merely by virtue of breaking the law.
Indeed the principle that "disruptive elements" are no longer human has long been a principle of fascist ideologies, the very ones that you're ostensibly defending us from.
Convicted murderers have proven themselves to be a danger to others, and yet even so as leftist we oppose cruel and inhumane prison sentences. We condemn the miserable condition of prisons. Not just because we don't like the state, but because we recognize that even genuinely "bad" people still retain their humanity.
Absolutely, which is why when a "Nazi" kicks you or is about to kick you, you have every right to defend yourself from him/her.
What you do not have is the right to "beat them up" merely because you think that somday they might attack you based solely on your interpreation of their political beliefs.
'Cause remember, most "fascists" these days do not label themselves as such. Sure, there are a couple thousand die hard "88" types. But most of the people you're talking about want nothing to do with Mussilini's corporatism or Hitler's varient thereof.
No, for the most part, they call themselves "conservatives" or "patriots" or some other innocuous sounding adjective. And while, to you, they may nonetheless be obvious "Nazis", your personal political assesment is not sufficient to deprive them of their right to not be beaten in the streets.
And this isn't just about social principle; I would remind you that to most people, communism is as much, if not more so, a danger than "fascism". Meaning that if you establish the precedent of politically-based assaults, it will quickly include you as well.
In the context of bourgeois society, mass assaults such as you are proposing will either lead to political chaos, and subsequently the ascension of the conservative "law and order" types, or a straightforward political crackdown.
Either way it isn't in our interests.
And all this attention being given to the politically insignificant crowd of "fascists" only helps our real enemies remain hidden and, even worse for us, portray us as hotheads and "anarchists" in the worst sense of that word.
But there is for "beating up"? So violent assualt only becomes wrong if there's a sexual aspect to it? So as long as our hypothetical "leftist" is just beating the shit out of some "fascist ****", it's all cool?
Don't you see how arbitrary the lind you're drawin is? If people have rights, they have rights. And thr right not to be raped and the right not to be assaulted in the street go hand in hand.
Like it or not, if you find the idea of raping "fascists" to be distasteful, then you must accept the fact that, fundamentally speaking, it is absolutely no different from the model that you are proposing.
It's just that rape is a more emotionally disturbing crime than simple assault. The underlying violation, however, is identical.
That has got to be one of the most naive statements I have ever read.
Maybe you should have a chat with the surviving members of the SPD, that is the ones who weren't murdered in the concentration camps.
There's a reason that this tactic has never worked in the past.
Except they kind of don't. I mean, yeah, they probably want to harm people "here and now", but there are so fucking few of them that they can't really do much.
Fascism hasn't been a major political force in over fifty years, and so while there are rump fascist organizations out there and all number of groups that you might choose to label "fascist", the fact is, big-F Fascism just doesn't exist anymore.
Indeed this whole leftist obsession with fighting "fascists" is more of a holdover than anything else, a mimicking of the great revolutionary movements of the twenties and thirties which really did have a powerful fascist enemy to fight.
Today, however, the primary agents of destruction and exploitation are not fascists, not in name and not even in ideology, but liberal capitalists and their agents.
Which means that wile "attacking the fash" might seem emotionally satisfying, it isn't the "great struggle" that "anti-fascist" groups like to make it out.
It also means, however, that if attacking fascists is justified because they're ideology leans towards mass destruction, then so must be attacking all manner of capitalists and even some self-declared leftists.
After all, primitivism if adopted would nescessitate the deaths of billions, does that make "beating the primmie" as acceptable as "bashing the fash"?
Why not? Both have about equal chance of gaining any serious power in our lifetimes. That is, none.
The KKK is dead. For all practical terms the organization doesn't exist anymoore. It hasn't been a centralized body for over seventy years, and since the 1960s its numbers have been dropping exponentially.
There are, at this point, less than 2000 self-identifying "klansmen" in the entire United States. An even those 2000 primarily spend their time sending out mailings and appearing on the Jerry Springer or Howard Stern shows.
Half a century ago, the Klan tied people to trucks and tied them to trees, today a black man in urban America is a million times more likely to be killed by a another black man than by the KKK or any other racist group.
It's poverty and the instutional racism of liberal socierty that are primary instruments of minority oppression these days, not guys in hoods. Ans concentrating on the latter only helps to obscure the real issues.
OK, so does that mean that you oppose attacking fascists who don't attack you? Or are you buying into the nonsensical arguments that merely by virtue of their being "fascists", they "must" be potentially violent?
Some do, but for the most part "fascists" do what most other political radicals do, they talk.
Every so often there's news of a hate crime of one sort or another, but even then I would remind you that most of the people running around beating up gays aren't political "fascists", they're certainly not members of any "fascist" political party.
No, 95% of the time, they're ordinary "conservatives, usually poor and uneducated, with no real political leanings other than not liking all this "liberal filth". A violent temperment and copious consumption of alchohol often play a leading role as well.
But when was the last time that you honestly heard about a centrally-organized "fascist campaign" against anyone? When was the last time that you experienced serious "race-war"?
The fact is, for all their bluster and for all the undue credit that leftist groups give them, the vast majority of "fascists" are entirely harmless. And the ones who aren't are generally people who would be dangerous whatever their ideological inclinations.
In other words, they "hold peaceful rallies, hand out leaflets" and use other non-violent means to spread their ideas.
I'd love to change the world, but I don't know what to do, so I leave it up to you...
Fascists are harmless because antifa makes them harmless. In areas where organized resistance to fascist organizing is weak, they make political ground and start to engage in the kind of violence you accuse them of being incapable of. Fascists talk the game, but they're also far more willing to play it then most leftists, and when allowed to organize, they will. That is why we stop them from organizing, by whatever means we can.
'heavens above, how awful it is to live outside the law - one is always expecting what one rightly deserves.'
petronius, the satyricon
Violence isn't pretty, it isn't cool, it isn't nice.
But sometimes it necessary, a more experienced anarchist told me about the extreme-right wing students group in our city, the NSV. Severl years ago they had started growing, until at some point they had about 25-30 members.
The local anarchists decided it was time to take action and started a campaign. (not to be sectarian, but other leftwing groups in the city simply didn't do anthing)
So they looked for the bars where the NSV held their meetings, printed posters calling for people to boycot these bars.
And of course there was more militant action, where they sought out the NSV students to beat them up and follow them to their homes/student dorms to show them 'we know where you sleep'
This is not friendly, this is not democratic, but it worked, the next year, the NSV had 5 members left and hardly held any meeting.
LSD, had a look at that website I posted?
Yes most fascists don't call themselves that, most of the time (I might even guess all of the time) these sort aren't attacked by anti-fa folk.
But those that do, they often are violent against people they don't like. See that bit in the news about gay rights protesters in Moscow the other month?
Anyway, remember, Anti-Fa are watching you...
fascists are one of our enemies, we can not underestimate them (like lots of fascist underestimate antifa/afa/...), things like "they're harmless" etc are dangerous things to say, fascist groups especialy have more power then most of us think, beating up their "soldiers" is just the beginning, there's nothing wrong with it (it sends out a signal) but we must be sure not to stay stuck here, we have to take out their leaders too
"Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners."
You need two to shake hands, but only one to make a fist...
Even though they are the ones that have the best chance of actually instating a form of fascism. The nostalgic neo-nazis don't have a hope in hell of actually making a fascist society, but regular conservative businessmen, politicos, generals, teachers, and cops have a lot more going for them if they attempted to do so. Logically you should be attacking them instead (based on the logi of anti-fascists, not my logic)- only guess what, those cloest totalitarians are not as helpless and hopeless as the obvious ones because they have the state on their side. So they attack the easy ones instead.
If the gay rights marchers brought pepper spray or something then they would be able to drive back the reactionaries who attacked them- that's sensible. But what isn't sensible is breaking up the fascist marches- what does it matter who's doing the repressing and comitting the agression- shouldn't the point be that it is occurring, and violating a group's attempt at speaking?
their tactics? excuse me but people have been beating the shit out of eachother since the dawn of man...and besides theyre fucking nazi's and fasho's, they are scum, and how else should we combat them, if not with violence? they are brutes, talking things out wont do anything, there is no peaceful means of dealing with them. Its not just about beating them up either, you need to show people they are weak and that they can be stopped, otherwise people will just look the other way and they will spread like a virus. Now with younger nazi's and fascists it isnt necessary to do any real bad damage, and small ass wooping may teach them a lesson
Of course not, but that isn't why antifa attack them. Although in some places, those groups are the ones with power and they're gaining ground... Eastern Europe, for instance.
Nonsense. Antifa have fought against those fuckers as well. They were quite recently heavily involved in the actions against the G8 meetings, not that I would characterize those as "fascist" meetings.
I don't give a fuck about fascists having their speeches or meetings disrupted. Offering fascists a platform to organize allows them to build stronger movements and start taking more serious action. When disrupted they can't operate and have to move and become more isolated from each other, being unable to publicly advertise their affiliations. It makes perfect sense to break up the speeches and meetings of people who want to kill me, my friends, and billions more.
'heavens above, how awful it is to live outside the law - one is always expecting what one rightly deserves.'
petronius, the satyricon
The only reason why they have no chance of setting up an actual fascist society is our opposition to them from their infancy.
The normal, apolitical people, if they actually heard the fascist platform themselves, would finally be able to know why it's not a very nice worldview, to put it lightly. I doubt many of them are so naive as to believe the bigotry, especially when it's not sanctioned by the media or the political mainstream. Probably the quickest way to deal with a fascist resurgence would be to let them speak for themselves.
We have a hard enough time selling people on socialism, anarchism, and communism, and we are suppsoed to be genuinely concerned with liberty, equality, and human dignity. Imagine how hard it would be to sell people on the deportation and murder of an ever-growing number of enemies of the state.
I doubt a fascist would speak the truth about fascism, look at what hitler did and what happend, I doubt it that was what the people wanted, but they get a lot of nice promises, fascists may be stupid enough too believe in fascism but they're not that stupid to know people won't like it very much, well at least the smarter ones amongst them, i'm not talking about the inbred blood and honour morons
"Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners."
You need two to shake hands, but only one to make a fist...
