Hey leftypol so I've been arguing with a friend of mine who is a hardcore berniecrat and we're pretty split on violence against fascists and the bourgeoisie.
So I have two questions for you:
1.) Do you support violence against racists/fascists/bourgeois/counter-revolutionaries/🍀🍀🍀kulaks🍀🍀🍀? And if so how?
2.) What do you think is the best way to explain your position to a centrist if you support said violence?
Other urls found in this thread:
libcom.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
foreignpolicyblogs.com
marxists.org
rbth.com
hdr.undp.org
hdr.undp.org
dailymail.co.uk
twitter.com
...
So he's on board with fighting enemies on freedom, but only so far as they actually have power. His main concern is that if one uses violence you are making matyrs.
...
Also: to fascists they are upholding virtues. How can virtue alone justify violence if virtue is such a vague concept
Thank you
i used to thing antifa were crazy faggot.
but when i heard "alternative facts" line from Trump's bitch i had an epiphany.
how do you win a debate against somone using "alternative facts" ?
those people don't give a damn about logic or facts, you can't debate with them.
the solution is to use "alternative arguments"
i'll be joining my local antifa group as soon as i can.
its going to far, those fuckers need to be put in place again.
There were some posts by a Greenie that were good that I tried to screen-cap, but it didn't work.
I did want to add that it's not so much about simple opinion as it is about action and policy. If there's a group out there that is about making your life hell or short, you can bet it's the excuse used by propertarians with Pinochet, and thus I would rest my case.
Well, if it's just a tactical consideration then he's honestly pretty damn close already. Sometimes you weigh the pros and cons and it's worth making a martyr.
Yes, but not as an end in itself. If all you're going to do is beat up Nazi LARPers in the street but not form any kind of political party of significant movement to actually justify simply defending the social order of liberal democracy, you've fallen into the bait of anti-fascism, anti-racism, etc. which are vulgar, ultimately reformist exploits.
There is a difference between simply acting as the extension of liberal democracy's ethical strongarm and acting as the extension of a greater emancipatory movement. If you bash le fash without any sort of actual working class organization, e.g. unionization along class lines, forming and defending a political party, etc., you're just acting on the interpellated impulses of the prevailing ideology to help maintain it.
I could only justify beating up LARPers if it were to defend the building of a greater revolutionary project. If Nazi thugs showed up at the union building I lead or am in solidarity with, I would absolutely reward their aggression with a bash. If it's them just LARPing in the street, I have nobody to blame but myself for not being out there LARPing alongside them and actually building up a movement. All they harm, at best, is the ignorance of a mass of people already not sublated to ideology of reaction, hence opposing them without myself offering an alternative would be pseudo-activity.
Longer alternate take on the Marxist stance on anti-fascism and why simply "bashing" it when it rears its ugly head is the arch-commandment of liberal democracy: libcom.org
What if you get arrested? Seriously, comrades in jail are pretty useless. If this was Weimar Germany with roving street gangs I'd agree with you, but things aren't like that.
This is true. When would you say is a good time to "make a matyr"?
Once again, I should stress here that being against fascism and racism in and of itself are not mistakes. What is a mistake is essentializing your duty as being simply against fascism and racism, instead of taking in that an opposition to fascism and racism as a communist is a fucking banality, and that your primary duty should be an opposition to capital, which directly takes with it an opposition to fascism, racism, sexism and what have you not.
1. Not actively. But I don't oppose it as much as I have. I think the least violence possible is the best option, but the left has fallen behind as far as its ability to defend itself from tyranny - and it shows. Richard Spencer facepunching is good. Fighting back against gung-ho violent cops is probably good. Selective property damage can be good as long as it's not hedonistic or paired with looting that distracts from the political motivation.
2. The way it opened itself to me. Since I was young, there's been this pattern. Church shootings (not just the big one from a couple years ago), abortion clinic attacks, the Bundy standoffs, the NRA crying "WHAT ABOUT US?!" every time a bunch of people were massacred just 'cuz… that's just the right-wing US gun/militia/terrorist side of things. Then you have the spying on anti-Iraq War protesters, Gitmo, police militarization, and all the authoritarian shit coming from the right at the top. Factor in Islamist nationalists and fanatics of that ilk, and the American right more or less has their own special kind of turf war with the American and international Muslim right on who gets to shoot more fags and blacks and liberals. They win elections consistently without the votes to back it up, they wave their guns around when a "leftist" (ha!) candidate wins with most of the vote, and maybe all these things are connected. The right participates in violence and intimidation both as authorities and as 'renegades,' and their holding disproportionate political power is probably related. There has to be a counter.
So what would your take be on the current state of anti-fascism? Are they in the right mindset or do you think their passion for anti-racism/fascism is overtaking their rationality?
Explain it in terms of markets. Cultures and ideologies willing to engage in violence will always beat the ones that don't because it confers a huge advantage. The perceived moral high ground confers no protection against bullets.
As I've said, there will never be a proper state of anti-fascism, because anti-fascism is an inherently dead-end ideological imperative. Its core function is upholding the social order of liberal democracy, hence it will never be proper praxis. All I can say about the current "state" of anti-fascism is to just look at the recent events. A Nazi LARPer was le bashed, a can le trashed, etc. Where is the emancipatory potential of this pseudo-activity? It is no wonder that anti-fascism finds its allegiance with anti-Germanism, left nationalism/national liberation, etc.; all efforts that provide no proper opposition to capital whatsoever.
Wrong theoretical stance, hence the "wrong" mindset and their ideological passions are inherently premised on nothingness. "Rationality", as much as it's a fedoracore term, is something that is genuinely lacking in the mind of any anti-fascist who supposedly considers himself a communist. An opposition to fascism, racism, etc., as I've said, is of the utmost banality if you actually build movements that actually have play a subversive role against the reigns of capital. Fucking unionize, form a political party, organize lectures, theorize, etc. and justify your opposition to the logical consequence of not doing those things!
If some larger, theoretically sound, organised, movement were to form though wouldn't antifa be the perfect "fuck shit up" wing of that movement? I agree with you that as it stands they're pretty much useless LARPers but with the right conditions they could be a powerful force so long as the movement as a whole had a sound ideology.
You are going to join a group of drug using people calling themselves antifascists only to use the some methods they claim fascists are using ?
The so called "fascistic" at least want unity and stability in their country while antifa is just a bunch thugs who want validation for their actions and get funded by the state all while they call themselves anarchists . They are controlled and bribed to do the biding of those in power
There is no need for violence , i don't know why you people get hyped for this shit
In a sense yes, but ultimately no. A pure opposition to fascism is still a profoundly misled one; one led by nothing but a hatred of capital in its uglier incarnation.
As for simply "fucking shit up"; what happens on the so-called morning after? Where will you start actually building something from the ruins of your fucked up shit? Assuming anti-fascism even manages to do more than break windows and liter the streets with trash from broken cans and the blood of some LARPers, where is the theory with which you fill up this voided ruin? Inevitably, you become forced to equate your face with the discourse of power, dialecticized by a need for political organization. You will need to form a political party or a similar organ to do shipbuilding with, and it is with this incurcumventable condition that it is vital that theorizing and organizing is done prior to, and woven during, the act of fucking shit up. There is no alternative recipe.
Wew lad. At best they get funded by philantro-capitalists who, from the safety of "progressive" organizations, manage to uphold the fabric of liberal democracy this way. The fact that pretty much everyone arrested by the bourgeois state in the wake of the recent anti-fascist exploits is going to face 10+ years of jail should tell you that the jail has no principled allegiance towards anti-fascism. The problem is precisely that the bourgeois state does not recognize that anti-fascism sustains it, and that that the anti-fascists do not know that they sustain its life span in return. A symbiotic relationship blinded by some of the most pure ideology around.
Classcuck. I will critique anti-fascism, but pacifism is principally the ethic of the slave.
>should tell you that the jail state* has no principled allegiance towards anti-fascism
wew.
I support violence and revolutionary terror against centrists.
Centrists are holding us back more than the fascists to be real.
I see your point, that makes sense. So in effect any violence enacted during the revolution must be precise and guided by the overarching revolutionary theory (including its end political aims). All violence then is purely subservient to the politics of the organised revolution as a whole.
Precisely. This organised revolution then, is in turn subservient to the narrative of an anti-capitalist shift; a movement away from the parasitcal reigns of capital and the ugliness of fascism it demands, as well as opening up a paradigm in which social issues can finally be solved upon a truly altered economic base; one which does not inherently command the creation of identitarian divides to profit off of.
So you know that antifa is funded by people who want a bunch of handy hooligans and still want to join it?
Yes.
No.
Do classcucks such as yourself even read more than what triggers their feefees? I've been very explicit in my opposition to anti-fascism from a Marxist PoV. Doesn't mean I have to believe in bullshit lies like that it gets state funding, something you will only find "evidence" for on Stormfag websites, or that I should have a general opposition to violence just because LARPers use violence too.
err…. not really :
en.wikipedia.org
UAF is supported by the government
what is a scapegoat or disposable henchman?
This is not an anti-fascist organization in the hegemonic anti-fascist sense (loose bands, part of the antifa network, which indeed are at times supported by NPO orgs backed by philantro-capitalists, including most famously le Hungarian cultural whitegenocidism man). This organization, UK-based, specifically advocates for non-violent protests against fascism (not just fascism, but also chauvinism and populism in general). The British state has directly incarcerated those who fell out of line and went violent, which is stated in the same article you've posted.
So the guy who made/pioneered communism, you know , communism the ideology that spawned states like USSR and communist china , state that killed so many people it would make Hitler blush(Mao high score is approximate 65 million people). Also why do you follow a idea or someone who made the idea that has failed so many times and made people suffer ( more any other ideology )
The communist idea proper predates Marx by over a hundred years, and arguably the thousands if we look at other famous ideologues who advocated exactly for what communism came to advocate for (class, stateless, moneyless society).
Capitalism, the ideology that spawned states like the USA, UK, France…
Lolz @ the muh gorillions number (go whine about this in your own thread in the future; this thread was about anti-fascism specifically) before invoking exclusively the victims of communism, in which capital invoked a violence much more liberally and much more murderous than the communist movement historically can defeat.
Because I can recognize the failure of prior attempts as tragic, but still see justice beyond it. Just like you stick to defending capital in spite of its historical death drive (except I actually support my allegiance to the communist movement while critiquing both capitalism and communis, while you blindly eat up whatever you were fed). Specifically Stalinist communism I abhor, in spite of its achievements, and yet I still see no other alternate possible way out of capitalism than communism.
philantro-capitalists , so a rich guy who pays them and in turn for his generous contribution antifa can do some 'favors' for him , yeah right ,like this will not be abused.
Yes i now some were jailed, that is what we would called disposable henchmen
Also please give some example of real antifa
Yes, philantro-capitalists fund movements that maintain the festering timebomb of liberal democracy alive through activist exploits like anti-fascism are a thing. And yes, they are abused, what are you even trying to aim for by stating this banality?
"Real" anti-fascism in its traditional sense, as I said.
From your favorite news source, Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Personally I would hesitate to use violence. I'm a pretty accomplished martial artist so I don't mind getting involved these situations but I can see it's bad publicity for the cause, and one person fighting will achieve nothing of value.
The best thing to do is turn the other cheek and win over the centre ground that way. Making fascists look like peaceful ones is a very stupid tactic,
first the examples in pic 2 are kinda logical if you are a state, you want resources to power yourself or gain a strategic advantage, a good portion of history (regardless if the nation was capitalist, communist, kingdom, democracy or dictatorship) is not uncommon but still tragic, also note that in that pic no other country did kill its own population more than 1 million ,but only the native american one did get very close to being significant number, it did that due the help of microbes and a long time span
I know capitalism has its flaws and needs a state to keep it from going hog wild, i know that in some countries it has gone very bad, but i also acknowledge the benefits it has , it is like fire , it is nice if you take care in it but if it gets to big you will burn.
Capitalism has proven itself more functional then communism in terms of goods it has and in terms of death, but not perfect
Beyond pathetic. At least 21st century communists recognize the tragedy of their ideology's past. You're a failure of a human being, and a failure of a moral relativist.
As imperfect as it was, you will not find a single post-Soviet nation state not more in favor of pre-capitalist conditions.
foreignpolicyblogs.com
marxists.org
rbth.com
And if just feefees weren't enough, data by organizations rooted in capitalist states since forever like the HRW, statistically and empirically prove that HDI pre-capitalism was way higher and life was much higher quality: hdr.undp.org
hdr.undp.org
All these things in spite of all my grievances with Stalinist communism, you enormous faggot!
1. It just makes the left look bad and lose supporters. In the small scale you could call it revolutionary but in the large scale it is much more counter-revolutionary.
HDR from 1990, the 90s ? were communism was coming to end and countries were going capitalism and expecting a shock, dude my country was communistic , i talked about it with a shit ton of people , communism had some advantages like you had guaranteed job( granted you had a job were you might make something useless and nepotism and corruption was widespread, also not much food and entertainment was kinda shit) , from what i talked, the hardest years were indeed the ones after the fall of communism but things got better , people still have nostalgia glasses on but the most liked thing was the fact that they got well with neighbors and relatives .The fact that im not getting killed for what i have to say and have an awesome internet connection is kinda neat.
Are you furious?
Absolutely epic, and a great follow-up to moral relativism of killing and slaving over 200 million people for the sake of "state building". Good job!
20 years post-breakup and Russia finally has a GNP per capita at the same level as before and barely manages to get it slightly higher after that! Wew, what progress! Thanks capital!
Yeah, like how Soviet Russia had its own internet system pre-WWW which was not just similar, but entirely free for all.
Anyways, I'm tired of BTFOing you on this subject. This thread was about anti-fascism, not your feefees. Feel free to make your own thread on this elsewhere because you don't need to expect any more replies me on this.
what?
Extreme violence looks bad, but punching Richard Spencer has gotten laughs from most everyone. Small stuff like that I think is good.
Bump. I would like critique of my stance
If someone won't play with the rule of freedom why should they be given it.
If someone points a gun to your child's head they are threntaning to take away you child's freedom and have now shown they do not respect freedom and should be met with voilence if it can stop them.
If you and a friend argue over what film is better no one's freedom has been taken away, this is not a good idea to then punch your friend for disagreeing with you for he did not take your freedom.
If the state and police force will jail you for braking laws that do not take away someone's freedom. e.g. smoking weed they have shown a lack of respect for your freedom.
If the ruling class impose a system that forces people to work hours not nessery to live I'd class this as them taking your freedom away.
Goes back to the whole joke of killing Hitler before he got into power.
He has already shown he has no concern for freedom of everyone and given the power will act to take away their freedom and by that point it will be too late.
Spencer is small fish but the principal sticks of him being in power he would probably has mass deportation of non whites aginist their will, this should not be respected and you should not care about his freedom as a person if he does not respect the freedom of others.
No because at this point, it doesn't make any sense. It's just here to release steam.
Once they start packing guns and move in cliques, that's an entire different question.
Start practising at gun ranges instead. At least learn how to reload and clean your guns. That's more productive for the things to come.
Centrists are people who confuse apathy with stability. Once shit hits the fan, they realise that despite their apathic behaviour, shit hit the fan. They will develop great animosity to the group who does them injustice first. That's why we should abstain from doing the same. Let porky and their fascist puppet do what they do best and they will flock towards us.
But they also should know their theory before they are fully integrated. Memes are a good way to transmit them, it is less forced than a full blown lecture and since people want to be part of and understand "insider humour", they will have to read more into it.
this thread is why the NAP doesn't apply to communists and shows how our state refuses to act in the interests of the market by protecting communists from helicopter rides
I support violence not morally, but on some base level.
Partially because it gets results and partially because it's simply satisfying to see evildoers afraid.
The problem comes when the system makes evildoers of us all. While someone working at a private assessment company with the job of ensuring the genuinely disabled don't get money they're entitled to is an evildoer, the system (more people than job openings) does have some force to make them there. Personally, I'm still drawn to the idea of someone flipping out one day and making them run for their lives thanks to their complicity… If everyone refused to work in such conditions, by necessity the system would budge. Whether that's achieved through amazing solidarity and goodwill, or people being too afraid of being hit over the head with a wheelchair to go into work and murder some people with tick-boxes…
I can't rationalize it particularly well. Sometimes it gets what you want. I support violence if it gets what I want without making me feel too guilty.
I support violence as a necessary measure of self-defense once the workers' collective act of self-determination and taking what belongs to them gets a retaliation from a pinkerton-esque organization or something else the bourgeois state sends out to defend its owners.
You'd be surprised. As satisfying as it is I have seen large threads by liberals being against it.
Bump.
pls.
