Question to Antifa

How do you justify the use of violence? Doesn't this make you an analogue to the far-right, or do you believe the ends justify the means?

Other urls found in this thread:

Because I have an ideology, and using violence to bring it about and fight against ideological enemies is appropriate.
We have different ideologies. Violence is just a fact of politics.

Okay, but does this not foster a mentality of 'you're either with us or against us'? I'm in no way sympathetic to the ideas of the far-right, but not sharing completely in your ideology would therefore make me an enemy too, right?

Property distruction isn't violence first off.
And defending yourself again is not perpetuating violence.
Antifa does elscalate tensions which many normies read as violence but it's not.

I read this interview with Slavoj Zizek earlier, which gives a different spin on violence


Fascism was an ambiguous buzzword ever since the days of Mussolini, every state is fundamentally fascist, anarchist diy spaces are organized via fascist principles.

The only thing that matters is power and force. Nature is fundamentally fascist. And the irony is that antifa are the only ones who are seemingly comfortable with this outside of the state organs of ZOG Occupied Government.

While Spencer and nu-Holla Forums exist , as they are way more likely to kill , as antifa want control , not destruction. Hard to humiliate people and getting them to beg if they die.

So it's a good strategy, at the end.

I'd love to see you try and qualify this statement with facts!

No argument there, I'm just not convinced that there aren't members of Antifa who want to fight as much as those on the far-right.

Why don't go and ask antifa, OP?

what is this shit

If it looks like bullshit and smells like bullshit…

*Shoots you in self defence*

Pls stop with antifa threads. I beg you

Kinda what I'm trying to do on here, assuming that there would at least be some posters who are either antifa or sympathetic to them.

Oh look, brainlet anthropomorphism

Apologies if my post offends, I'm genuinely just asking a question not trying to piss anyone off.

Newfriend, I presume?
Most of us here are very skeptical of antifa, and view it as essentially integrated into bourgeois politics. They have no positive political project just opposing a nasty thing, they try to use the left of capital to fight the right of capital. That's not at all communist politics.

Pic related. How do serfs justify their violence against the feudal lord? The same way wage-slaves justify theirs against the capitalist.

Only if you've convinced yourself that you are so enlightened and centrist that you are "above it all."

Your bible club is that-a-way →

Sympathies maybe, but nobody here is.

Thanks both.

Pretty much!

Keep lurking, ask honest questions, don't get hurt too much by banter, ask for movies, documentaries, online lectures, start reading theory.

Thanks, and I'm pretty thick skinned when it comes to banter.

Good documentary BTW. I should give it another watch.

Are you thick skinned when it comes to reading, too?

Indeed; how the hell else would a person learn anything? Recently decided to stop being so goddamn lazy and read more widely, so the link is appreciated.

A good place to start thinking of these things is to realize that antifa, or "leftist" violence in general, is not all of one kind.
One variety is purely defensive: fascists often use violence, intimidation, etc. to disrupt leftist organizing and establish control in certain areas. If you can't or won't rely on police protection, collective violent action is the only way to protect against that. I hope you can agree with that at least.
On the other end of the spectrum are pure larpers, college kids who want to topple a trashcan every now and then, but are otherwise comfortably bourgeois. In between are all kinds of organizations and motivations for using violence, some better than others.
Generally, violence that isn't defensive or aimed at a seizure of power seems useless, but that's just my opinion, bro.


I agree with much of what you say. Defense is fine, but seizing power through violence doesn't sit well with me. I agree more with Slavoj Zizek (see previous link in )

But the Antifa are not oppressed by fascists, fascists are not the ruling class, both Antifa and fascists are part of the working class, it's more like a civil war inbetween the working class, so Antifa/fascists violence is not necessary and so not legitimate.

The face of the new left.

Did you read the whole post?

I did, violence is sometimes justify but the post was kinda ambigious about Antifa violence being legitimate or not, and OP's post was more about Antifa violence so I wanted to make some precisions.


no thanks

not gonna work

If you sympathize with anti-fascism, then you aren't an enemy. Plenty of people on the side of anti-fascism hold reservations about the use of violence, and therefore don't. Some people do not hold these reservations and are okay with the use of violence for ideological purposes. If you're ready to dismiss a leftist's ideology simply because they're okay with the use of violence, you're reactionary.

Do you hold this as a universal principle, or just a particular application to our current situation? Would you also be against slaves killing their slave owner as a means to free themselves and seize the plantation?
Also, do you consider all destruction of private property violence?

Of course Antifa has some edgy kids who are there just to pick fights. So does the alt-right. That being said, it's still a worthwhile cause to counter and delegitimatize these "free speech rallies," violence or no.

Most of the fascists are bourg or petit bourg. They are not fighting for liberation, they are fighting to save racial hierarchies.

The end game of the far right is to kill all non whites.
The end game of the far left is to abolish capitalism.
Not comparable.

I could say this for most of the left too, especially Holla Forums, I mean, who got time to waste on obscure imageboards apart bourg or petit bourg?
Also, most of the West is part of middle class and so can be called "petit bourg".

They're just wrong about the ennemy, if they realize that they are pissed off because of capitalists instead of semites, they would join us, but if you just fight with them, it will justify their hate for the left.

that's not what petit bourg means
Nazis care more about white identity and d3generacy than economics. They're fine with capitalism as long as its whites only capitalism.

Y'all are fucking retarded

Could you even define what you mean by "nature"?

What's your personal definition of "petit bourg" then?

The main problem is that you think the entire far-right are straight up nazis, you need to understand, that, like the far-left, there's a lot of tendencies, and some of those tendencies has an anti-capitalist ideology, like Nazbol, Asserism, National syndicalism, etc.

No. The lower/middle/upper class breakdown has nothing to do with the Marxist concept of class. It's a bourgeois distinction based off of an arbitrary point on an income scale that's only useful in determining gradiations of consumption. The Marxist analysis of class refers to your relationship with the means of production.

Yeah but these people are still spooked by racial hierarchies, which inherently promote violence.


some get paid for it, some just want to hit women with political justification, could be anything. as for what it will achieve, zero in a democracy.

I still don't have a clear definition of petit bourg but whatever.

Yes they are spooked by racial hierarchies but the far-left promote violence too but for differents reasons, you're not against violence, you're against racism.

Correct, I'm not against violence. Nice sleuthwork.

The correct one? If you own private property and use that property to employ wage laborers you are bourgeois. If you're a small business owner too small to manage a giant factory you're petit bourgeois.
literally capitalism with ethno-nationalist characteristics


So they are kinda succesfulI, I though they were NEET basement dweller!

I never said that, I was just pointing out that petit-bourg means small business owner. After Charlottesville a bunch of nazis got doxxed and were fired, which would make them not bourgeoisie.

A lot of alt-righters come from bourg or petit bourg families, they are not necessarily successful themselves.

Yeah sorry, it's the other user that said fascists were petit bourg.

Thanks, that's prove that they are part of the working class like I said.

A lot of these guys were young, so they still most like are from petite bourgeois families. Spencer certainly is.

And some of Antifa come from bourg or petit bourg families too.
But anyway, the whole Antifa/Fascist fight nowadays is not class based, it's mostly based on the racial question.

true, that's an important clarification I should of made.
If anyone ITT hasn't read the anatomy of fascism yet they're doing themselves a disservice.

I still don't see how this makes antifa right or wrong

That's not the point, in my fist post I said that fascists are not the ruling class and therefore the antifa violence is not necessary and so not legitimate.
Why don't antifa beat up some bankers instead?

fascists are the shock troops for the ruling class, same as cops. They are permitted to exist by the capitalists because they oppose and terrorize communists
Bankers don't usually want around unprotected.

They are permitted to exist by the capitalists because they oppose and terrorize communists
Exactly, fascists are an effect of capitalism, not the cause, fight the cause instead.

Oh I see now, it's because they are weak, back in the 30's 40's you would not beat fascists because they were protected too.

You can't fight capitalism if fascists break your legs.

There was antifa back in the 30's 40's and they beat up, shot and assassinated fascists.

That would happen only if you attack them first or try to fuck up their rallies, fascists never counter-protest during the Occupy Wall Street as example.

The antifa in the 30's 40's has nothing comparable with nowadays antifa, same with fascists.


Maybe becuse they would be torn apart if they tried?

Anybody got that link about Italian proles battling thousands of fascists that were laying siege to their town?

Because according to Antifa, capitalists are "protected", so they just beat weak fascists.

More like assassinating individual capitalists is only a useful tactic in certain circumstances while beating on fascists is always a good thing becuase it prevents them from organizing in the future.
It's not like you can end capitalism by shooting bankers anyway, the problem is with a system, not a man.

Same with fascists you won't prevent them from organizing because you beat some of them, it's the opposite, you will enforce their beliefs.

Dick Spencer said he's afraid to go outside and needs bodyguards now

But he's still a fascist and he's still organizing. He's afraid only because he's one of the most coward fascist publicly known. Most skinheads would beat up leftist or semites to take revenge.

They're beliefs are reinforced by fellow Nazis. Antifa has successfully delegitimized them with tireless work all year. Not standing up to them would have been a de facto implicit endorsements of their ideology.

Fascism needs a power base, a power base Antifa successfully fusterated. You're just butt mad their tactics are working. Much like imperialists that would get mad at guerrila warfare calling it cowardly. Antifa was the weaker party, the Nazis are the one who were being protected by the state. So no, they're not going to attack bourgeois and place themselves in situations they have no likelihood of winning.

No shit.

I guess you support capitalism then.

The only that delegitimized and fusterated them is the violence at the protest relayed by mass medias.
Yes there would have not been violence without Antifa, but the violence also delegitimized the far-left.

If you don't like Antifa tactics what's stopping you from doing something. Antifa confronts neo Nazis, bourgeois are not explicitly Neo Nazi so attaching them would feed into the convient narrative that they are terrorists to normies, and Antifa knows it.
Nice try on trying to convince people should encourage Antifa to put themselves in the exact place they need to be to be labeled terroist with your concern trolling Nazi sympathizer.

They confront neo Nazis, which sometimes escalates into violence. You implicitly treat neo Nazis like another political party, and not the criminal gang they often are that perpetuate violence and intimidation in their own communities.

You're the one asserting it's in fact Antifa reenforcing Neo Nazi ideology through their confrontation of them
Implying I don't act against capitalism through agitating, organizing and educating.

Your ideas don't work and are not desired, so you provide that violence and intimidation is justified to install them anyway.

While you're prepared to support the use of force against anyone in conflict with your ideology, your sympathizers get a pass and won't be harmed.

Where exactly is the resistance of evil? Shouldn't the world be resisting you?

So Antifa confront neo nazis but not capitalists because they don't want to be labeled as terrorists by normies, I understand better now.

I treat them like any political party because they are not the ruling class, that's our main disagreement, I consider that violence is legitimate only against the ruling class, but you don't because like you said, normies hate fascists so you can be violent with them but not with the capitalists who are the ruling class.

Fascists reinforce fascists beliefs, of course.
And beat up fascists reinforce fascists beliefs too.

yeah and every fascist government in history has renegaded on its economic beliefs almost immediately, and being authoritarian that they are, those who opposed the changes were simply vanished

I'm not defending fascism but some of fascists have a leftist potential and are from the working class, I'm just saying that you won't make them change by beating them up.

remembering what happened in nazi germany should be all the justification you need.
they also used all the same tactics of charm and deception until they seized power.
using some force now is preferable to using way more force after they start genociding folk