Antifa

[Altfish]

It goes deeper than YT. Both parties are extending their support or banner to anyone that shares even minority of views. The parties are fighting to prevent a party split as the two system benefits both. Populism in the GOP. Socialism in the DNC. Extremist of different brands be it anarchists or neo-nazis. Each party is becoming a mockery of itself. Well more than each already is.

I think the US has a different definition of socialism, in the UK socialism isn't 'extreme'

 

[Augustus]

The question still remains, if combating fascism is the goal, can we be certain that Antifa is barking up the right tree? Aren't they just going after the "easy meat"? Do they ever attack anyone or anything with any real power?

Modern anti-fascist action groups developed in Europe around 40 years ago specifically to fight skinhead gangs who were attacking people in the street: to fight violence with violence. In this regard they were very successful and significantly reduced such gang attacks.

The original AFA groups preWW2 were also specifically combatting violence with violence.

In the US nowadays, you don't necessarily have a comparable situation as in at least some of the cases the groups they are attacking are not engaging in the aggressive use of violence. This may lead to greater questioning of the legitimacy of their tactics in some cases.

 

[Loviatar]

The question still remains, if combating fascism is the goal, can we be certain that Antifa is barking up the right tree? Aren't they just going after the "easy meat"? Do they ever attack anyone or anything with any real power?

There seems like a bit of talking past each-other in this discussion. If the question is whether there's a threat of resurgent 1930s-style fascism, I don't think that's a serious issue in the US at the moment. The supporters of that are mostly white trash people and NEETs who aren't taken seriously.

If the question is the threat of a racialist and lite-authoritarian politics within an otherwise liberal framework akin to Viktor Orban's in Hungary though, the power of Steve Bannon in the Trump campaign and his early administration shows that is actually a strong current in the American body politic, as does the growing clout of "alt-lite" organs like Infowars, Freedomain Radio/Stefan Molyneux, and (formerly Bannon-owned) Breitbart. That isn't technically fascism since it's not advocating suspension of liberal democracy, it's more just broadly under the umbrella of "hard right authoritarianism," but it is a current that shares enough things in common with fascism that many people don't notice a difference. The DNVP, who essentially were it in 1930s Germany, allied with the Nazis before they were liquidated.

I don't believe Antifa actually helps though, because it makes Bannon's co-ideologues look like victims. What the average person sees is one side being violent and not letting the other side talk, a lopsided image shattered only periodically by acts of far-right violence like Charlottesville. In general, that seems to me like the reason why the far-right plays the victim so much: for gaining sympathizers, it works, because they have examples to point to handed on a platter by the far-left.

It seems clear to me that giving rabid right-wing populists who play on peoples' emotions a platform to speak unfettered (i.e. not a debate where the opposition can speak as well) does help them spread and damages reasoned public discourse, which is why I have no objection to private organizations like YouTube cleaning up their output. That also seems to look dramatically different to the average person from violent unprovoked assault or shouting people down. I think you can notice the difference by just observing the majority opinion in the Alex Jones YouTube drama thread compared to any Antifa one.

From the European side democrats could at times be seen as a right-wing party. At least their views put on the spectrum were about as right wing as a traditional right-wing party in the EPP a decade ago. Which says a lot about how useful this right-wing left-wing rhetoric usually is.

As someone who is considered center-right in my home country but considered center-left in the US, I basically agree with this.

It's starting to change, the Democrats are starting to polarize leftward too and it shows in talk like "abolish ICE," but they're still generally closer to the pre-wild polarization (i.e. pre-Tea Party or so) center than the Republicans. Many candidates running under the Democratic label in 2018 are conservative Democrats like Conor Lamb and their 2020 frontrunner, Joe Biden, would probably be considered a liberal Christian Democrat in Europe.

Meanwhile, liberal Republicans like George Pataki basically don't exist outside of hard-blue states and often vote Democrat in presidential elections. I prefer almost any Democratic 2020 candidate to Trump for example, and the only Republican presidential candidates I'd have voted for in 2016 against either major Democratic candidate are Pataki, Kasich, probably Rubio. But, I intend to vote against Andrew Cuomo at the state level, who seems to me like a highly corrupt example of authoritarian centrism who just runs roughshod over Upstate.

 

[Estro Felino]

From the European side democrats could at times be seen as a right-wing party. At least their views put on the spectrum were about as right wing as a traditional right-wing party in the EPP a decade ago. Which says a lot about how useful this right-wing left-wing rhetoric usually is.

The truth is that European countries have different kinds of structural socialism, so they are light years away from the US politics.
In Europe there is a Souverainism vs Globalism battle going on, right now...and sometimes the most socialist programs are from right-wing parties

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Fascism is best fought through united front action, not sectarian provocation. If I'm mobilizing a social justice action, I don't want allies staying home for fear that some left-wing thug might create an incident that puts people in wholly unnecessary danger.

 

[Stevicus]

My mistake.

Antifaschistische Aktion logos and primitive black bloc tactics were for sure around then.

However in America a lot of anti-fascist / anti-racist activism was really channeled into specific organizations and figureheads like the BPP / CPUSA / NOI.



There is no real capacity to deal with fascist ideology within the liberal capitalist framework. The fascist right wing grows when material conditions decline, because it is more convenient for the privileged to knowingly or unknowingly support politicians who will benefit them at the expense of others, rather than facing the risks that those who advocate structural change face.

I see the rise of fascism as an inevitable result of capitalist (liberal) crisis. Fascism is capitalism in decay. A systems authoritarian and violent attempt to survive.

Debate, facts and reason have little to do with the rise of fascism, and by extension facts and reason have no means of suppressing fascisms rise. You can't reason someone out of a belief they didn't initially come to through reason.

The goal of anti racists is to make these opportunists and scumbags afraid to expand their vile ideology. Fascism doesn't spread when it's in the closet. It must be out in the public eye in order to capitalize on the disillusionment that the privileged have with liberal democracy.

The goal is to make racists afraid to organize and consolidate politically. It works.

Unite the Right 2018 was a pathetic failure

On an individual basis, I would much rather talk someone out of reactionary beliefs. I have been trying this for 5 years with a neo nazi in my neighborhood and I have been more thoughtful with him than in any discussion I've ever had on this forum. His politics are not generated by facts. I can show him a dozen different reasons that his beliefs on climate science are wrong and it mysteriously never changes his politics on climate change. I have shown him that his anti-drug policies hurt the the addicts to noone's benefit. I can show him how unions have helped Canadian workers. Doesn't change what he politically identifies as and who he organizes with.

Talking and unprincipled civility which is preached by liberals doesn't work.

What comes after talking? Shame.

If I someone cannot be talked out of advocating genocidal ideology, and can't be shamed out of advocating genocidal ideology, there is only one natural choice to make when said genocidal ideology becomes a legitimate threat to the community.


This may be an incoherent wall of text you didn't ask for. Probably riddled with grammatical errors because it's late. Sorry.

I can see what you're saying, and I agree that the largest part of the problem is capitalism itself. But the problem is the many social liberals and leftists supporting capitalism and giving a free pass to Wall Street's antics.

I also agree that most of the efforts of the right-wing seem to fall apart, such as exemplified in your link about the pathetic turnout at the "Unite The Right" rally. That's how these things usually go. A dozen or so white nationalists show up to protest, having to be cordoned off by police and surrounded by hundreds of people (most of whom don't appear to be Antifa) railing against them. Looking at the videos, the white nationalists just appear to be a bunch of raggedy old men who probably don't have two dimes to rub together. It seems like an incredible waste of political energy to go after poor people when there must be bigger fish to fry.

I'm not sure that I agree with your view that fascism is capitalism in decay. There may be some similarities, but I would also see connections with US globalist militarism and imperialism, yet they also try to pass off an image of "freedom" and "democracy" even while supporting quasi-fascist regimes around the world. The last time anyone in the liberal/anti-establishment/anti-fascist factions did anything meaningful against that was back during the Vietnam War era. Since that time, they've mainly been a bunch of sell-outs.

I'm not sure that people can be talked out of supporting a genocidal ideology - if that's what they're knowingly supporting. Shame probably wouldn't really work either, not for those who are that far gone. Shame only works on those who have a conscience, but in our culture these days, we've recklessly embraced nihilism and narcissistic consumerism to such a degree that any kind of social conscience that once existed has all but evaporated from politics.

It worked during the 60s, since that was the era of love, peace, and more cooperative, collectivist ideals that liberals once favored. But we've abandoned all those ideals in exchange for luxury-driven consumerism and a dog-eat-dog mentality of every man for himself. The only real shame that exists anymore is the shame of poverty. There's no shame in greed, no shame in selfishness, no shame in the flaunting of wealth, no shame in militarism or aggressive violence (as long as it's done in service to the State) - these are all things that our society has willingly embraced.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Emphasis mine:

however I am against some of the attitudes among the group concerning being violent towards people with Nazi ideology especially if unprovoked.

When is it ever unprovoked?

Espousing Nazi or fascist ideology is, at the very least, a threat of violence if not actively planning for violence.

If someone is literally threatening you with death and violence, should you have to wait until they actually have a gun pointed at your head before you respond?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In the US nowadays, you don't necessarily have a comparable situation as in at least some of the cases the groups they are attacking are not engaging in the aggressive use of violence. This may lead to greater questioning of the legitimacy of their tactics in some cases.

White supremacists and other far-right groups committed the majority of extremist-related murders in the United States last year, according to a new report by the Anti-Defamation League.

White supremacists were "directly responsible" for 18 out of 34 U.S. extremist-related deaths in 2017, the ADL said. Islamic extremists, by comparison, were only responsible for nine deaths in America.

[...]

Last year’s data match historical trends recorded by the ADL. The organization counted 387 extremist-related murders over the last decade: Right-wing extremists were responsible for 71 percent of those murders, while Islamic extremists were linked to 26 percent.

White supremacists committed most extremist killings in 2017, ADL says

And that's only considering homicide, not other violent acts.

 

[Stevicus]

Modern anti-fascist action groups developed in Europe around 40 years ago specifically to fight skinhead gangs who were attacking people in the street: to fight violence with violence. In this regard they were very successful and significantly reduced such gang attacks.

The original AFA groups preWW2 were also specifically combatting violence with violence.

In the US nowadays, you don't necessarily have a comparable situation as in at least some of the cases the groups they are attacking are not engaging in the aggressive use of violence. This may lead to greater questioning of the legitimacy of their tactics in some cases.

I think what strikes me is that, in most of the incidents that have occurred in recent times, it's typically a situation where a handful of fascists (who are basically just a bunch of impoverished people from the sticks who are likely mentally ill and wearing costumes and flags to get attention) are outnumbered more than 10-to-1. How courageous or tough does one have to be to "fight the good fight" under such circumstances? How brave does one need to be to attack the mentally disabled? How noble does one need to be to attack poor people?

 

[Marcion]

The problem with SJWs, antifa, etc. isn't with what their goals are (opposing inequality, bigotry, tryanny, etc.), but rather with their chosen methods of attempting to attain them.
A good analogy would be cutting someone's head off to treat their brain tumor.

You mean the left should have given flowers and hugs to the nazi's prior to WW2 in order to have stopped their movement killing millions of innocent people?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Emphasis mine:


When is it ever unprovoked?

Espousing Nazi or fascist ideology is, at the very least, a threat of violence if not actively planning for violence.

If someone is literally threatening you with death and violence, should you have to wait until they actually have a gun pointed at your head before you respond?

No, but quite obviously people have selective perception and in the video the boy’s father chooses to not see alt-right actions rather Antifa. With this administration it will be falsely identified as a domestic terrorist organization or an extremist organization as it has designated BLM and the New Black Panther party. White nationalists will play victim so it’s easy to fall in the trap of being a combatant.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The problem with SJWs, antifa, etc. isn't with what their goals are (opposing inequality, bigotry, tryanny, etc.), but rather with their chosen methods of attempting to attain them.
A good analogy would be cutting someone's head off to treat their brain tumor.

You mean the left should have given flowers and hugs to the nazi's prior to WW2 in order to have stopped their movement killing millions of innocent people?

What a transparently stupid and thoughtless response. Ae you truly suggesting that the only alternative to impotent sectarian provocation is hugs and flowers? How sick.

 

[Stevicus]

There seems like a bit of talking past each-other in this discussion. If the question is whether there's a threat of resurgent 1930s-style fascism, I don't think that's a serious issue in the US at the moment. The supporters of that are mostly white trash people and NEETs who aren't taken seriously.

That's who the Antifa are attacking. I don't see or hear of them attacking anyone else. They go after the easiest and most vulnerable targets and think that they're doing something very brave and noble.

If the question is the threat of a racialist and lite-authoritarian politics within an otherwise liberal framework akin to Viktor Orban's in Hungary though, the power of Steve Bannon in the Trump campaign and his early administration shows that is actually a strong current in the American body politic, as does the growing clout of "alt-lite" organs like Infowars, Freedomain Radio/Stefan Molyneux, and (formerly Bannon-owned) Breitbart. That isn't technically fascism since it's not advocating suspension of liberal democracy, it's more just broadly under the umbrella of "hard right authoritarianism," but it is a current that shares enough things in common with fascism that many people don't notice a difference. The DNVP, who essentially were it in 1930s Germany, allied with the Nazis before they were liquidated.

A lot of what we're seeing today appears to have been derived and influenced from various sources. For one, there was a strong anti-government, conspiratorial mindset fostered and encouraged during the 1960s (largely from liberal/leftist sources), and this mentality has carried over to the present day. Cynicism regarding the government has been very strong in the political culture, from both left and right.

Another issue is the economy. One key difference between the present day and the 1950s/60s is that back then, the economy was improving and reaching its peak, while today, the economy is mostly stagnant and many see America as a once-great power in decline.

One should also consider the day-to-day struggles that a lot of people have to face. Some people have to work two or three jobs just to keep a roof over their heads and feed their families. People often dismiss them as ignorant and clueless, but the one thing they're certain to know is how much their paychecks are, what they can buy, and what they have to spend.

They may not know much about the inner-workings of government, but they do know how much they're paying in taxes. They look around their communities and see nothing to show for it - other than roads strewn with potholes and city parks full of trash (because of all the budget cuts and "hard times" governments claim to be going through). They see countless vacant lots, boarded-up buildings, and shuttered factories as living reminders that things were once better in America.

They have to deal with endless bureaucracy where they take a number and wait in line. They have to wait on hold with "customer service" for an interminable period of time, all the while being told that "your call is very important to us." A lot of people may be ignorant fools, but they're not that stupid.

You hear it from people all the time. They worry about the future. A lot of people think the country is going down the tubes - and they wonder why that is. What has happened to America? Liberals really have no answers to that question, or they try to intellectualize it so much that it ends up falling on deaf ears.

This is why a lot of people end up gravitating to alternative sources of information - such as you mentioned with Infowars, Breitbart, etc.

The only real way to counter this is by demanding greater openness and transparency in the government and other mechanisms of societal influence. Truth can be a powerful weapon, but in a society filled with deep, dark secrets, classified information, and a culture where "no snitching" is the overriding rule - few people actually want to go on record. It's the culture of silence and secrecy which breeds all this conspiratorial thinking.

I don't believe Antifa actually helps though, because it makes Bannon's co-ideologues look like victims. What the average person sees is one side being violent and not letting the other side talk, a lopsided image shattered only periodically by acts of far-right violence like Charlottesville. In general, that seems to me like the reason why the far-right plays the victim so much: for gaining sympathizers, it works, because they have examples to point to handed on a platter by the far-left.

This is true. They attack those who seem the most vulnerable and easy to attack - and from a certain standpoint, it appears more like bullying the weak - and not quite so noble or brave as they would like others to think.

This isn't like the 1950s and 60s where they might have been going up against Bull Connor and the Birmingham Police Department. They're not taking on any "Invisible Empire." Things are different nowadays. Since those times, we've seen an escalation in the war on drugs, which has given the state and law enforcement broad powers. We've seen huge crime waves in the cities, which have somewhat subsided since the 1990s but still active in public memory.

We've had 9/11, which also made an indelible mark on the public consciousness and their perceptions of America and the outside world today. That led to the Patriot Act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which some people decried as bordering on authoritarianism and fascism. We've seen the militarization of police forces and a wider expansion of the security/surveillance state. We have a lot of prisons and one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. All of this had been going on long before Bannon or Trump came on the scene, and I seriously doubt that any of the white trash or NEETs had much to do with the creation and implementation of the national security state we've been living under for quite some time now.

While the Antifa have been distracting themselves chasing rats hiding in the corner, an entire quasi-fascist society has risen up around them, and yet they don't realize it. They might be noticing it now, but they seem to believe that it all has to do with Trump. I've noticed in all of these endless discussions about Trump that most of the current liberal crowd are unable to connect the dots and see the progression of events and influences which brought us to this point. It makes me wonder if they've become fossilized or perhaps still stuck in the 1960s. Or maybe they just sold out and their position is entirely based on pragmatic self-interest and cynicism.

It seems clear to me that giving rabid right-wing populists who play on peoples' emotions a platform to speak unfettered (i.e. not a debate where the opposition can speak as well) does help them spread and damages reasoned public discourse, which is why I have no objection to private organizations like YouTube cleaning up their output. That also seems to look dramatically different to the average person from violent unprovoked assault or shouting people down. I think you can notice the difference by just observing the majority opinion in the Alex Jones YouTube drama thread compared to any Antifa one.

The best way to fight an idea is with another idea. But that's where a lot of liberals fall short, since they've run out of ideas. At one time, they thought they were the "best and the brightest" with new, progressive ideas to change society, but they're really not what they used to be.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Found an interesting video posted by CNN regarding ANTIFA. What the alt-right movement is to the right wing, is ANTIFA too far left what it is to the left wing? I'm really liking ANTIFA's message concerning it being against ultranationalist/authoritarian ideology (Fascism), however I am against some of the attitudes among the group concerning being violent towards people with Nazi ideology especially if unprovoked. But the following video is interesting.

what a bunch of idiotic wannabes.
I could tell they want to be like Isis sooooo bad.

One thing I know for certain is they ain't no Curtis Sliwa.

 

[Father Heathen]

You mean the left should have given flowers and hugs to the nazi's prior to WW2 in order to have stopped their movement killing millions of innocent people?

Of course not. How in the hell did you infer this from my post? What a bizarre non sequitur.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

what a bunch of idiotic wannabes.
I could tell they want to be like Isis sooooo bad.

One thing I know for certain is they ain't no Curtis Sliwa.

You must have smoked the pookie pipe when writing this

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I've suggested nothing of the sort, thus the only "transparently stupid and thoughtless response" is your own.

Expand the quote in #37. I was responding to Marcion.

 

[Loviatar]

That's who the Antifa are attacking. I don't see or hear of them attacking anyone else. They go after the easiest and most vulnerable targets and think that they're doing something very brave and noble.

That's not really true. The Battle of Berkeley and related tensions which set this whole "antifa vs. the hard right" thing off was with the aforementioned "alt-lite" types mainly, hence why Based Stickman has become a celebrity for them. That wing of US politics actually is large, and growing - considering the popularity of Infowars and Breitbart, I don't see their fans as just random rednecks or NEETs.

I don't like Antifa either by and large, mainly because they're generally assorted communist and anarchist radicals who'd be dangerous in their own right if they grew in size. And their conflation of the alt-lite with the alt-right proper seems to actually further cement the two in alliance, further radicalizing the former when it otherwise works through and can be fought through normal channels. But the recent Unite the Right kerfuffle isn't the only thing Antifa have been involved in, or even really the main thing they're known for.

For one, there was a strong anti-government, conspiratorial mindset fostered and encouraged during the 1960s (largely from liberal/leftist sources), and this mentality has carried over to the present day. Cynicism regarding the government has been very strong in the political culture, from both left and right.

Another issue is the economy. One key difference between the present day and the 1950s/60s is that back then, the economy was improving and reaching its peak, while today, the economy is mostly stagnant and many see America as a once-great power in decline.

Agreed with all of this.

The only real way to counter this is by demanding greater openness and transparency in the government and other mechanisms of societal influence.

I'd argue the best way to counter it is actually to deal with the economic backdrop that you mentioned. Those people need healthcare taken care of, plus some form of employment or (more likely considering their jobs are increasingly automated) social insurance + training. Efforts to combat atomization would also help to defang the more middle-class suburban end of this, which is where a lot of "identitarian" youth are coming from. That would include religious revival, and long-term better urban planning to foster a more town-like atmosphere where people walk around and know each-other. e.g. New Urbanism.

Greater openness and transparency in and of itself seems like it wouldn't impact much, since every government by their nature negotiates some things in secret. Probably a considerable amount if your country is larger in size than Luxembourg. So, conspiracymongers will always have something to point to; sometimes rightly, usually wrongly.

We've had 9/11, which also made an indelible mark on the public consciousness and their perceptions of America and the outside world today. That led to the Patriot Act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which some people decried as bordering on authoritarianism and fascism. We've seen the militarization of police forces and a wider expansion of the security/surveillance state. We have a lot of prisons and one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. All of this had been going on long before Bannon or Trump came on the scene, and I seriously doubt that any of the white trash or NEETs had much to do with the creation and implementation of the national security state we've been living under for quite some time now.

I think the difference with Bannon and much of Trumpism as a movement is that they seek that state power, which I agree is often overbearing, in hands specifically targeting sections of civil society that aren't their own. Not simply going after threats to order that are generally agreed on by civil society with some low-key racial bias here and there, but one set of the citizenry bearing down on another in near-explicit terms. In short, the beginning of liberal democracy eating itself at the hands of populist demagoguery.

That's the issue liberals and traditional conservatives have with them, anyway, along with the movement's general coarsening of political discourse. The issue Antifa has with them seems to include the "unabashed near-explicit racial targeting" element, but seems to also fold in with broader dislike of the right in general. And seems to remove broad dislike of demagoguery in general.

 

[Estro Felino]

Emphasis mine:


When is it ever unprovoked?

Espousing Nazi or fascist ideology is, at the very least, a threat of violence if not actively planning for violence.

We have neo-fascist parties here. Not violent at all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We have neo-fascist parties here. Not violent at all.

Sure they aren't.