Antifa linked to violence during protests.

[Augustus]

How could they have any links to "Antifa"?

"Antifa" is not an organization or a political movement, it is a political or philosophical position on how to deal with fascism and Neonazism:

It is a (decentralised) political movement though and there are many Antifa groups. Direct action can't simply exist as a 'philosophical position' as it requires some degree of organised, direct actions.

So, in theory, there is nothing wrong with linking violence to Antifa, just like, in theory, there is nothing wrong with linking violence with white supremacism despite the fact there is no centralised organisation called 'white supremacism'.

What Americans commonly associate with "Antifa" are simply Anarchists or Autonomists employing Black Bloc tactics.

How would you differentiate between the groups?

There is significant overlap between the movements and people involved, how would you, from a distance, say 'this is an anarchist engaging in black bloc tactics' rather than 'this is anti-fascist direct action' (given the definition of fascist for many on the revolutionary left includes the police, capitalism, etc.)?

 

[Tambourine]

It is a (decentralised) political movement though and there are many Antifa groups.

It is a "political movement" in the sense that it unites disparate people under a common goal (fighting fascism) and seeks to reach that goal via a wide variety of methods and tactics (including but not limited to violent ones).

Direct action can't simply exist as a 'philosophical position' as it requires some degree of organised, direct actions.

"to some degree" is a giant weasle word that can mean anything from "spontaneous" to "centrally planned"
There exists an entire school of leftist activism centered around the principle of spontaneity and spontaneous action, that is, not centrally planned or directed by a discrete organisation, but rather arising from local circumstances. Not all of that has to involve planning that is any more elaborate than a group of people agreeing to show up to the next protest to smash a few shop windows.

So, in theory, there is nothing wrong with linking violence to Antifa, just like, in theory, there is nothing wrong with linking violence with white supremacism despite the fact there is no centralised organisation called 'white supremacism'.

Do you genuinely think that all violence by white people, regardless of context, should be linked to the ideology of white supremacism? Because that is what I see as the equivalent of blaming "Antifa" for every crime committed by a masked protester.

How would you differentiate between the groups?

There is significant overlap between the movements and people involved, how would you, from a distance, say 'this is an anarchist engaging in black bloc tactics' rather than 'this is anti-fascist direct action' (given the definition of fascist for many on the revolutionary left includes the police, capitalism, etc.)?

They are not discrete groups to begin with, so I think your question is misleading you here.

A Black Bloc is a tactic or set of tactics used during political demonstrations, protests, riots etc.

Antifa is simply a governing principle or common set of tactics for how to deal with fascism.

 

[tytlyf]

There's RW agitators and outsiders going to these protests to instigate people.

 

[Augustus]

It is a "political movement" in the sense that it unites disparate people under a common goal (fighting fascism) and seeks to reach that goal via a wide variety of methods and tactics (including but not limited to violent ones).

It's a political movement in the sense of the meaning of the term 'political movement': a group/groups of people who work together to try and achieve a socio-political goal.

Many political movements are/have been decentralised, and this doesn't mean they are not political movements.

In your opinion, why shouldn't it be described as a political movement?

"to some degree" is a giant weasle word that can mean anything from "spontaneous" to "centrally planned"
There exists an entire school of leftist activism centered around the principle of spontaneity and spontaneous action, that is, not centrally planned or directed by a discrete organisation, but rather arising from local circumstances. Not all of that has to involve planning that is any more elaborate than a group of people agreeing to show up to the next protest to smash a few shop windows.

'To some degree' was not a 'weasle word' but to (unsuccessfully) avoid a quibble on an unimportant point: the degree of organisation.

If there is any degree of organised action it is not simply a 'principle'.

Do you genuinely think that all violence by white people, regardless of context, should be linked to the ideology of white supremacism? Because that is what I see as the equivalent of blaming "Antifa" for every crime committed by a masked protester.

I wasn't making the case that Trump was accurate in his branding, I was making the case that this is incorrect:

How could they have any links to "Antifa"?

"Antifa" is not an organization or a political movement, it is a political or philosophical position on how to deal with fascism and Neonazism:

It is a fact that there are many Antifa groups, and if any one of these groups carried out violent acts then it is perfectly correct to link such violence with Antifa.

Rose City Antifa - Wikipedia

Do you genuinely think that all violence by white people, regardless of context, should be linked to the ideology of white supremacism? Because that is what I see as the equivalent of blaming "Antifa" for every crime committed by a masked protester.

That's not what I was saying.

Do you believe it is correct to label white supremacism as a political movement, and accept it is perfectly fine to link violence with white supremacism in certain situations?

They are not discrete groups to begin with, so I think your question is misleading you here.

That's what I said

A Black Bloc is a tactic or set of tactics used during political demonstrations, protests, riots etc.

Antifa is simply a governing principle or common set of tactics for how to deal with fascism.

But this doesn;t reflect the history of the movements or the way the terms are used (and not just misused).

Black Bloc doesn't only relate to the tactic, but also the movement/groups involved.

Antifa isn't simply a 'governing principle', but is also a movement and collection of groups.

This has always been the case.

 

[Tambourine]

It's a political movement in the sense of the meaning of the term 'political movement': a group/groups of people who work together to try and achieve a socio-political goal.

By that definition, the police is a political movement.

'To some degree' was not a 'weasle word' but to (unsuccessfully) avoid a quibble on an unimportant point: the degree of organisation.

If there is any degree of organised action it is not simply a 'principle'.

Sorry, but I find that conclusion to be a complete non sequitur.

I wasn't making the case that Trump was accurate in his branding, I was making the case that this is incorrect:

How could they have any links to "Antifa"?

"Antifa" is not an organization or a political movement, it is a political or philosophical position on how to deal with fascism and Neonazism:

It is a fact that there are many Antifa groups, and if any one of these groups carried out violent acts then it is perfectly correct to link such violence with Antifa.

Rose City Antifa - Wikipedia

In the same sense as linking terrorism committed by individual Muslims to Muslim religion as a whole, or bad arguments by individual atheists to Atheism as a philosophical position. In other words, I believe that you are exaggerating the degree of commonality and mutual cooperation between different antifascist groups.

That's not what I was saying.

Do you believe it is correct to label white supremacism as a political movement, and accept it is perfectly fine to link violence with white supremacism in certain situations?

I don't think white supremacism qualifies as a unified political movement, as I understand it primarily an ideology or group of related ideas and political actions or policies. There do exist, however, organisations or political movements whose guiding principles are white supremacist (for example, I would qualify the "Alt Right"/Neonazism as a white supremacist political movement).

That's what I said

Really? As far as I can tell, you are argueing the exact opposite.

But this doesn;t reflect the history of the movements or the way the terms are used (and not just misused).

Black Bloc doesn't only relate to the tactic, but also the movement/groups involved.

They are often wrongly conflated, yes, in the same way that early medieval Norse culture is conflated with the practice of viking (maritime raiding) to the point where the latter has become a denominator of the former.

I don't think that we should therefore ignore any such distinctions where they can be made, simply because majority population and mainstream media don't care to make these distinctions. Nuance and accuracy are useful tools in a political conversation.

Antifa isn't simply a 'governing principle', but is also a movement and collection of groups.

This has always been the case.

No.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Isn’t that interesting? It seems Trump is lying again, trying to create division. And people are falling for it.

What else would he do? He's proved it works, because people are stupid enough to fall for it -- over and over and over and....

Someday, somebody should start a thread on group dynamics, and how that can lead good people to do terrible things...

 

[Augustus]

By that definition, the police is a political movement.

A tangerine is an orange citrus fruit, not all orange citrus fruits are tangerines.

Rather than quibbling, I'm just going to use the term in the standard sense: Political movement - Wikipedia

Sorry, but I find that conclusion to be a complete non sequitur.

Well it's not the only mistake you've made in this thread

In the same sense as linking terrorism committed by individual Muslims to Muslim religion as a whole, or bad arguments by individual atheists to Atheism as a philosophical position. In other words, I believe that you are exaggerating the degree of commonality and mutual cooperation between different antifascist groups.

This is a fallacious argument as it shifts the unit from a movement to individuals.

It is the same as linking terrorism to the Salafi-jihadist movement, not individual Muslims.

Many groups within this movement are mortal enemies, this doesn't change the fact it is a recognisable movement with commonalities that link the disparate groups.

If you can say Salafi-jihadist terrorism, you can say Antifa violence.

I don't think white supremacism qualifies as a unified political movement, as I understand it primarily an ideology or group of related ideas and political actions or policies. There do exist, however, organisations or political movements whose guiding principles are white supremacist (for example, I would qualify the "Alt Right"/Neonazism as a white supremacist political movement).

Not all political movements are 'unified'.

By what criteria is the 'alt-right' be a movement, yet Antifa is not?

Really? As far as I can tell, you are argueing the exact opposite.

Then you are missing the point: that you are creating pedantic and arbitrary distinctions that make meaningful discussion of the issue more difficult.

I don't think that we should therefore ignore any such distinctions where they can be made, simply because majority population and mainstream media don't care to make these distinctions. Nuance and accuracy are useful tools in a political conversation.

Some people mistake pedantry for nuance and accuracy. It is worst when the pedantry is mistaken.

You are attempting to redefine a word in a manner that is not consistent with its scholarly, historical or popular usages and insisting that everyone else is wrong to use the term in its standard manner.

For such an attempt to be valid it must offer a significant clarification over the previous usage, whereas yours simply obfuscates and necessitates cascading waves of pedantry and subjective nitpicking before one can even begin to address the topic in a common language.

A quick sample of the term being used in an academic context, not simply 'misused' by ignorant people as you claim is the case:

So the relevant question is: Have individuals who are connected to the antifa movement committed any acts of terrorism
to this point in time?

LaFree, G. Is Antifa a Terrorist Group?. Soc 55, 248–252 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-018-0246-x

This paper adopts a deviant case analysis approach. Its aim is to generate new hypotheses about the reasons for the Antifa movement by treating Ireland as an outlier in relation to the existing reactive explanation for militant anti-fascist mobilisation.

Jonathan Arlow (2020) Antifa without fascism: the reasons behind the anti-fascist movement in Ireland, Irish Political Studies, 35:1, 115-137, DOI: 10.1080/07907184.2019.1570139

Bray's (2017) book chronicles how the Antifa movement suffers political alienation, media mistreatment, and repression from law enforcement and the moderate progressives in Europe and the United States.

Xu, W. (2020). Mapping Connective Actions in the Global Alt-Right and Antifa Counterpublics. International Journal Of Communication, 14, 22. Retrieved from Mapping Connective Actions in the Global Alt-Right and Antifa Counterpublics | Xu | International Journal of Communication

This study examines the Twitter rivalry of two groups of the alt-Right and antifascist movement to understand how certain appeals, launched through social media, may promote material violence
Klein, A. (2019). From Twitter to Charlottesville: Analyzing the Fighting Words Between the Alt-Right and Antifa. International Journal Of Communication, 13, 22. Retrieved from From Twitter to Charlottesville: Analyzing the Fighting Words Between the Alt-Right and Antifa | Klein | International Journal of Communication


In Germany in the 1990s, a debate emerged in the autonomous anti-fascist movement over whether antifa was mainly a form of self-defense necessitated by attacks from the Far Right or a holistic politics, often called “revolutionary anti-fascism,” that could form the foundation of the broader revolutionary struggle.12 Depending on local contexts and politics, antifa can variously be described as a kind of ideology, an identity, a tendency or milieu, or an activity of self-defense.
Despite the various shades of interpretation, antifa should not be understood as a single-issue movement. Instead, it is simply one of a number of manifestations of revolutionary socialist politics (broadly construed).

Mark Bray - Antifa: The Antifascist Handbook

If you would like a whole load more: antifa movement

No.

The evidence says otherwise.

AFA started off as a wing of the German communist party. This is clearly not simply a "principle".

You have hundreds of groups worldwide using the name Antifa that share many of the same goals, use similar insignia, organise conferences and offer cooperation and support with this network and try to encourage increasing number of people to join them.

Yet referring to any of them as Antifa is "wrong" simply because you say so?

 

[Tambourine]

A tangerine is an orange citrus fruit, not all orange citrus fruits are tangerines.

Are you objecting to the idea that the police is a group of people who work together to try and achieve a socio-political goal? Or are you objecting to my usage of your definition in ways you haven't anticipated/does not conform to your political worldview?

Rather than quibbling, I'm just going to use the term in the standard sense: Political movement - Wikipedia

This entire conversation is about nothing but quibbling over definitions. If that's not up your alley, then I question your judgement in joining it in the first place.

Well it's not the only mistake you've made in this thread

I take it that you are not going to elaborate on your train of thought, then.
What exactly is the point of this debate again?

This is a fallacious argument as it shifts the unit from a movement to individuals.

No, it is exactly the argument you have used to identify Antifa as an organised movement with common goals.

Someone commits violence in the name of Antifa, therefore Antifa is an organised political movement that orchestrates violence to further its political goal.

Someone commits violence in the name of Islam, therefore Islam is an organised political movement that orchestrates violence to further its political goal.

A police officer commits violence in the name of Law and order, therefore the police is an organised political movement that orchestrates violence to further its political goal.

It is the same as linking terrorism to the Salafi-jihadist movement, not individual Muslims.

Many groups within this movement are mortal enemies, this doesn't change the fact it is a recognisable movement with commonalities that link the disparate groups.


If you can say Salafi-jihadist terrorism, you can say Antifa violence.

How does your premise that all Salafi jihadist movements are working together to further a common political goal square with your assessment that "many groups within this movement are mortal enemies"? That's a rather contradictory argument to make.

Not all political movements are 'unified'.

They have to be unified to a degree in order to satisfy your definition: a group/groups of people who work together to try and achieve a socio-political goal.

By what criteria is the 'alt-right' be a movement, yet Antifa is not?

Well, first of all, unlike Antifa, the "alt right" actually shares a common ideology, organisational structures, personnel, and funding across national borders.

Secondly, it is made up of actual political organisations that are trying to achieve explicit political goals, rather than simply constituting a reaction to the presence of their political enemies as Antifa does.

Then you are missing the point: that you are creating pedantic and arbitrary distinctions that make meaningful discussion of the issue more difficult.

But that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Some people mistake pedantry for nuance and accuracy. It is worst when the pedantry is mistaken.

You are attempting to redefine a word in a manner that is not consistent with its scholarly, historical or popular usages and insisting that everyone else is wrong to use the term in its standard manner.

I am not redefining anything.

For such an attempt to be valid it must offer a significant clarification over the previous usage, whereas yours simply obfuscates and necessitates cascading waves of pedantry and subjective nitpicking before one can even begin to address the topic in a common language.

Are you done with the insults? Got it all out of your system?

A quick sample of the term being used in an academic context, not simply 'misused' by ignorant people as you claim is the case:

[...]

The evidence says otherwise.

AFA started off as a wing of the German communist party. This is clearly not simply a "principle".

You have hundreds of groups worldwide using the name Antifa that share many of the same goals, use similar insignia, organise conferences and offer cooperation and support with this network and try to encourage increasing number of people to join them.

Yet referring to any of them as Antifa is "wrong" simply because you say so?

None of the articles you quote discuss the nature of Antifa, or how or why it is a political movement or organisation, they simply assume that it is without any further examination of that premise.

Also, did you miss entirely that one your own sources says in its abstract that "[d]epending on local contexts and politics, antifa can variously be described as a kind of ideology, an identity, a tendency or milieu, or an activity of self-defense."



I would have been prepared to discuss the subject further, but since you already mentioned that you intensely dislike these kinds of "quibbles" and consider my entire argument to be nothing more than arbitrary pedantery, I question how productive such a discussion is going to be.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

What are "bad" officers, and how can we distinguish them from "good" officers?

Do you think this conflict would have happened if police officers had simply obeyed the law?

As far as I can tell, people were being attacked hours before the curfew.

So you think that neither the police, nor the vigilantes that attacked protesters and rioters, are obligated to be peaceful, correct?
Are protesters always an acceptable target for violence, then, or only in certain circumstances?

I'll let you have the last reply after this. But if you think things would be better with no police at all, you are disillusioned. We would be sitting ducks for violence.

 

[Stevicus]

It is a "political movement" in the sense that it unites disparate people under a common goal (fighting fascism) and seeks to reach that goal via a wide variety of methods and tactics (including but not limited to violent ones).

Would you say that each and every individual who fights against fascism would automatically be "Antifa" on that basis alone? I ask this because I had uncles who fought against fascism in WW2, but listening to their opinions about the left-wing anti-war protesters of the 60s or of the civil rights movement (or even about minorities in general), I think the average Antifa person of today would view them as "fascists." They weren't fascists, though, not in the strictest sense of the word.

 

[tytlyf]

Someday, somebody should start a thread on group dynamics, and how that can lead good people to do terrible things...

I keep warning people about the republican elitists using propaganda and panic mongering on their vulnerable base. The republican base is completely oblivious to the scare tactics and emotional trickery from these RW swindlers.

There's 2 reasons republicans are against public education and it's funding.

1. Reducing tax payer dollars towards education leaves extra money for those at the top (corporations, capitalists).
2. An educated and critical thinking populace is harder to trick (ensuring a consistent base)

 

[Tambourine]

Would you say that each and every individual who fights against fascism would automatically be "Antifa" on that basis alone? I ask this because I had uncles who fought against fascism in WW2, but listening to their opinions about the left-wing anti-war protesters of the 60s or of the civil rights movement (or even about minorities in general), I think the average Antifa person of today would view them as "fascists." They weren't fascists, though, not in the strictest sense of the word.

I would distinguish between people who fight against fascism as civilians/non-governmental armed bands out of conviction/belief/politics vs. people who fight against fascism because it's their job (e.g. soldiers in the armed forces of the Allies during WW2).

 

[Tambourine]

I'll let you have the last reply after this. But if you think things would be better with no police at all, you are disillusioned. We would be sitting ducks for violence.

Don't Americans pride themselves on their 2nd amendment and their ability to defend themselves?

 

[Stevicus]

I would distinguish between people who fight against fascism as civilians/non-governmental armed bands out of conviction/belief/politics vs. people who fight against fascism because it's their job (e.g. soldiers in the armed forces of the Allies during WW2).

So, then they would necessarily have to be civilians or non-governmental in order to be considered Antifa?

As I understand it, they originally started opposing fascism in Germany, but they seem to have a different mission these days. I guess it mostly depends on how one defines "anti-fascist" in the current political climate. Does it mostly focus on actions by the State and the State apparatus, or does it focus on the opinions of private citizens who have no connection to the State?

 

[Augustus]

Are you objecting to the idea that the police is a group of people who work together to try and achieve a socio-political goal? Or are you objecting to my usage of your definition in ways you haven't anticipated/does not conform to your political worldview?

I'm pointing out that definitions do not read right to left. All A are B, doesn't mean that all B are A. It has nothing to do with my 'political worldview' just my view of language.

If you want to call the police a political movement, that's up to you. Most people would disagree with you though.

No, it is exactly the argument you have used to identify Antifa as an organised movement with common goals.

How does your premise that all Salafi jihadist movements are working together to further a common political goal square with your assessment that "many groups within this movement are mortal enemies"? That's a rather contradictory argument to make.

This seems to be the crux of your misunderstanding as you keep on arguing against a position I don't hold.

Not all groups have to be working together, it is the people within the groups who are working together. The groups may have no contact with each other or even be rivals, this doesn't matter. I have never claimed that Antifa is a centralised movement, I said the opposite.

Making it even more general, the Salafi movement covers a range from apolitical quietists to jihadi terror groups. They can still be grouped together based on a common characteristic though. Same with feminist movement, temperance movement, abolitionist movement or whatever.

Well, first of all, unlike Antifa, the "alt right" actually shares a common ideology, organisational structures, personnel, and funding across national borders.

Secondly, it is made up of actual political organisations that are trying to achieve explicit political goals, rather than simply constituting a reaction to the presence of their political enemies as Antifa does.

All of those apply to Antifa to a similar or greater extent than the 'alt-right'.

For example:

In Salem, the neo-Nazis were confronted by the Swedish anti-fascist movement and their domestic and international allies. The Swedish Antifascistisk Aktion (AFA) was officially formed in 1993 after several years of organizing and networking among mainly anarchist and autonomous anti-fascists who were in touch with German, British, and Danish comrades. According to Dolores C., a longtime anti-fascist militant and organizer with the anarcho-syndicalist union SAC (Sveriges Arbetares Centralorganisation), by the late 1990s the Swedish AFA had many prominent women organizers and the network as a whole placed a great emphasis on feminism.

Mark Bray -Antifa: The Antifascist Handbook

Also saying Antifa is just a 'reaction' is like saying white supremacism is just a 'reaction' to the presence of non-white people.

Are you done with the insults? Got it all out of your system?

It is not an insult to directly address the substance of your posts. I believe your argument to be pedantic and incorrect, and that it obscures more than it enlightens for the reasons I've given.

Also, did you miss entirely that one your own sources says in its abstract that "[d]epending on local contexts and politics, antifa can variously be described as a kind of ideology, an identity, a tendency or milieu, or an activity of self-defense."

Why would that be problematic? A number of people promoting and following a political ideology or identity is a movement.

None of the articles you quote discuss the nature of Antifa, or how or why it is a political movement or organisation, they simply assume that it is without any further examination of that premise.

The context of this point was that I said referring to Antifa as a movement reflects the historical, scholarly and popular usage of the term, not simply a 'misuse' out of ignorance.

If you want Antifa cadres using it themselves:

In May 2016, there was a Fantifa Kongress in Hamburg “open to all genders.” Its mission statement read “Since Antifa is currently excluding and unattractive for women* a rethinking of the vigorous antifascist movement must occur.”

Yet, despite a number of attempts to adapt anti-fascism to the threat of popular far-right politics, Dominic laments that the movement has “no answer to it yet.” Ultimately, he argues for a dual strategy entailing “a political movement that is open to a lot of issues along with a military wing fighting the concrete problems on the ground…you have to separate them in the structure but they are not necessarily exclusive to each other.” The Antifascist Handbook


So we have popular, scholarly and historical historical sources along with Antifa members using the term.

We have people calling themselves *group name* Antifa, who cooperate domestically and internationally with other people calling themselves *group name* Antifa, who refer to themselves as Antifa, yet linking any specific violent actions with Antifa is an error? (and no, this doesn't mean they are all collectively responsible for it)

Can't say I agree with your logic there.

 

[Revoltingest]

It appears that they're at it again....

Videos Show Antifa Rioting Outside Charlie Kirk Event At California University, One Officer Hurt - The Police Tribune

Davis, CA – Videos show that windows were smashed and at least one police officer was injured by rioters protesting the appearance of conservative Turning Point CEO Charlie Kirk at University of California – Davis on Tuesday afternoon. Black-clad antifa protesters clashed with law enforcement...

policetribune.com

BREAKING: Antifa Assaults Charlie Kirk's UC Davis Speech - San Bernardino News Today

Violent Antifa protesters are being arrested on the College of San Bernardino, Davis campus after smashing doorways and home windows as they tried to storm a

sanbernardinonewstoday.com

As for the sources, they're unusual.
I've found this coverage on many sources, but not a mainstream one as of this post.

 

[Father Heathen]

It's funny how antifa went from punk kids tipping over trash cans to somehow pulling off elaborate James Bond style operations.

 

[fantome profane]

It appears that they're at it again....

Why do you say “again”?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why do you say “again”?

It's not their 1st time being violent.

 

[Augustus]

Why do you say “again”?

Because they are a movement that advocates the consistent use of violence for political means?