You don't just have cognitive dissonance with that, and it follows when you say "but antifscistes nowadays are almost all anticapitalists". This is just phraseology. It's meaningless. Everyone can call themselves whatever but what matters is what they actually do when they pretend themselves revolutionary.
No, that is exactly what antifa do. That, and disciplining the centrist or liberal left parties when they aren't keeping on their progressive promises enough. You also speak of recruiting but they recruit nothing at all. Let's ignore for a moment that antifascism is not a formal organization but an informal way of affiliating oneself under an ideology (anyone can hoist its banner and bash some "fash"), and see that at the basis "anti-capitalism" for antifa means little more than violently affirming progressivist capitalism while breaking stuff every once in a while and opposing some skinheads in the street, and you'll see that all it recruits and breeds is more types like that.
Who the heck does that? Again, seriously, show me who does that. The point is precisely that antifa is activism but not even a useful one. We can safely say that no activism ever will be revolutionary, but in the case of antifa it is exclusively either a waste of time or actually impeding useful activism. For example, almost a week ago in Dallas there was an altercation between antifa and some BLM folks. On the rare occasion BLM was here merely protesting police violence peacefully, and some goons thought it would be smart to don their black clothes and stand under their banner with violence. It was not just an opportunistic latching on to a useful struggle that wasn't theirs, but antifa effecively discredited the whole thing, and a fight errupted between BLM and the antifas.
Again you are taking a rejection of antifascist frontism to mean a rejection of all struggles against capitalism, including its fascist version. Show me one instance where anti-antifascism resulted in not confronting fascism at all please.
I've read that. I've read most texts trying to pretend Rojava has more of a class politics than it shows including the most famous ones by Graeber, but nobody can confirm their claims, and from what we can actually see ourselves they are just reiterating a lot of the claims with little more. Again let's just wait to see who is right on this question after the civil war settles and hopefully the Rojava factions are still around to see what they actually end up doing and becoming.
Lol it has nothing to do with "what can they and can they not do?". I ask whether the claims of it being any more than I implied they aren't are true. It is not revolutionary in the slightest. Admirable, yes, but the fetishization of Chiapas is insane, just there to reprimand some relevance where there is none.
The rest I already addressed and has no connotation that denies the holocaust, it simply makes claims about what the holocaust really meant and for what ends it was used by the perpetrators and its liberators. And when you say "I zm aware the author is a "jew" by hereditiy but he was himself atheist and it doesn't prevent from saying stupid shit" that's the exact same shit the anti-German blog you linked and Bihr would invoke against Marx and his Jewish heritage in context of Marx's text on the Jewish question.
