|
KazigluBey posted:Is the banning of political parties always wrong in your mind, such as with the Romanian New Right? How about the Meir Kahane's Kach party, a literal Jewish fascist party that was banned in Israel for being too blatantly fascist/racist?
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 04:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I'm pretty sure that I've said that what is occurring in Greece has moved beyond politics as the Golden Dawn has begun to use violence. I think that there is a moral imperative to oppose fascists when they become violent. But banning political parties for saying things that you don't like undermines democracy. Violence is the threshold that must be crossed first. The banning of the Romanian New Right party and their prevention from running in elections; in your mind, good or bad?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 04:04
|
|
|
KazigluBey posted:Do you think Golden Dawn are a legitimate political force, or that what's going on in Russia should be respected in the name of democratic serenity? He's already said that the answer to this question is no. quote:Fringe parties with Communist leanings are not a growing threat across Eastern Europe and Russia, leading to all the crap that can be found in the OP and in a few other posts in the thread. And yes, if a party started gaining traction and their ideology was literally Bolshevism with a side order of Stalinist purges on the horizon I'd be up in arms about it. I guess your defense of McCarthyism means you're at least intellectually consistent. ThirdPartyView posted:How about the Meir Kahane's Kach party, a literal Jewish fascist party that was banned in Israel for being too blatantly fascist/racist? Apparently that's done a great job of keeping racist assholes out of Israeli politics! (That does point to a more pragmatic objection to banning parties; banning open fascists leads their supporters to vote for slightly more cunning crypto-fascists instead.) Silver2195 fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Aug 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 04:04
|
|
|
KazigluBey posted:The banning of the Romanian New Right party and their prevention from running in elections; in your mind, good or bad? This question can't be given a straight up "good or bad" answer because the world isn't that simple. I think that it would be a good thing insofar as their ideology is a terrible cancer on the human race. I think that it would be a bad thing in that it sets a dangerous precedent for banning political parties because they advocate things that the powers that be don't like. Hence, I don't think that political parties should be banned until they start doing real, actual damage such as committing violence against others or directly and explicitly advocating violence against others. And no, simply being fascist does not count as directly and explicitly advocating violence against others. Some fuckhead saying stuff like "I want all the immigrants to leave" or "I think that Hitler had some things right" is not directly advocating violence despite them being revolting positions to have. Saying "kill all the jews and towelheads, they all live in this part of town" does constitute advocating direct violence and if people in actual authority within the party refuse to stop doing it or retract their statement then I think that can be grounds for banning the party. So yeah. It's more complex than "good or bad."
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:I guess your defense of McCarthyism means you're at least intellectually consistent. The gently caress? My point was it's useless to decry our lack of attention on X ideology or Y ideology when neither of them are gaining traction nor representing growing threats. Reiterating, but if parties sprang up across Europe and followed the thinking and style of Pol Pot's or Stalin's brand of Communism I'd agree it'd be a problem. This is not happening, however. What's being suggested here by you lot is that examples of ideology of fascism turning violent must be divorced from consideration of the ideology itself. That Golden Dawn is an issue, granted, but that it cannot be used as an argument against its core ideology. So in essence any ideology, no matter how hateful or dangerous must be allowed political agency through the party system until it becomes violent, at which point it is divorced from the party that went violent and we just shrug our shoulders and soldier on. How many free plays should this be valid for, in your opinions? How many do-overs does an ideology get before we decide that maybe, just maybe, if its core tenants are inherently violent and giving them legitimacy may be a bad idea? The Romanian New Right literally declared itself the spiritual successor to the Iron Legions. I take it then that we should have shrugged and let them go about their business until heads got bashed in or whatever at which point we were to act like we didn't see it coming, or that we plainly did but were reduced to being passive actors until they made the first move. Crazy thought, but parties whose ENTIRE PLATFORM is "I want all the immigrants to leave", "I think that Hitler had some things right", "gently caress [insert minority here], they are scum" might be willing to act on these thoughts when granted power. Maybe there should be some things you aren't really allowed to build your platform on, like an ideological base-work that inevitably leads to violence. But gently caress it, Jedit was right, I'M the fash for calling the fash unlawful. KazigluBey fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Aug 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 04:45
|
|
|
KazigluBey posted:The gently caress? My point was it's useless to decry our lack of attention on X ideology or Y ideology when neither of them are gaining traction nor representing growing threats. Reiterating, but if parties sprang up across Europe and followed the thinking and style of Pol Pot's or Stalin's brand of Communism I'd agree it'd be a problem. This is not happening, however. It seems we're all arguing that there's a point where a political party has become a threat and should be resisted violently. However, you draw the line at a point before any laws have been broken. When fascists start saying that we should kill the Jews, that's illegal and that's the point you arrest their leaders or, if the police won't serve justice, firebomb the fascist headquarters. Not before that point because someone identifies the local conservative party as a fascist group.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:This question can't be given a straight up "good or bad" answer because the world isn't that simple. I think that it would be a good thing insofar as their ideology is a terrible cancer on the human race. I think that it would be a bad thing in that it sets a dangerous precedent for banning political parties because they advocate things that the powers that be don't like. Hence, I don't think that political parties should be banned until they start doing real, actual damage such as committing violence against others or directly and explicitly advocating violence against others. And no, simply being fascist does not count as directly and explicitly advocating violence against others. Some fuckhead saying stuff like "I want all the immigrants to leave" or "I think that Hitler had some things right" is not directly advocating violence despite them being revolting positions to have. Saying "kill all the jews and towelheads, they all live in this part of town" does constitute advocating direct violence and if people in actual authority within the party refuse to stop doing it or retract their statement then I think that can be grounds for banning the party. This argument for nuance seems to boil down to implicit versus explicit, which I don't buy because history shows fascists explicitly rest on unraveling violence along racial/ethnic lines during specific circumstances to drum up support. And they are bent on following through with it once actual power is grasped. I just don't see the point of having political purgatory for people who carry flags 2 line segments away from a full blown swastika.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 04:54
|
|
|
Chamale posted:It seems we're all arguing that there's a point where a political party has become a threat and should be resisted violently. However, you draw the line at a point before any laws have been broken. When fascists start saying that we should kill the Jews, that's illegal and that's the point you arrest their leaders or, if the police won't serve justice, firebomb the fascist headquarters. Not before that point because someone identifies the local conservative party as a fascist group. Or well we could nip it in the bud and beat the poo poo out of them before it even gets to that point. Preventive medicine is after all much more efficient than treating the disease afterward.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
Shes Not Impressed posted:I just don't see the point of having political purgatory for people who carry flags 2 line segments away from a full blown swastika. Because the flag of Switzerland is 4 line segments away from a full blown swastika. Can you or anyone describe a set of laws that would suppress fascists without having a chilling effect on legitimate political discourse, whether or not you agree with that discourse? The key is to be proactive and stop the fascists from breaking the law, not regulating speech based on its similarity to the speech of violent groups.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Not before that point because someone identifies the local conservative party as a fascist group. Strawman argument, nobody is arguing this in the thread. KazigluBey posted:What's being suggested here by you lot is that examples of ideology of fascism turning violent must be divorced from consideration of the ideology itself. That Golden Dawn is an issue, granted, but that it cannot be used as an argument against its core ideology. So in essence any ideology, no matter how hateful or dangerous must be allowed political agency through the party system until it becomes violent, at which point it is divorced from the party that went violent and we just shrug our shoulders and soldier on. How many free plays should this be valid for, in your opinions? How many do-overs does an ideology get before we decide that maybe, just maybe, if its core tenants are inherently violent and giving them legitimacy may be a bad idea?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 05:02
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Because the flag of Switzerland is 4 line segments away from a full blown swastika. Can you or anyone describe a set of laws that would suppress fascists without having a chilling effect on legitimate political discourse, whether or not you agree with that discourse? The key is to be proactive and stop the fascists from breaking the law, not regulating speech based on its similarity to the speech of violent groups. I'm not sure how a political party carrying the flag of Switzerland is relevant to what I was saying. If your attempts to subvert being called a Nazi directly involves tailoring a flag in the same vein as the Nazi's swastika by breaking a few lines off but keeping the intended effect, well I can't unsee the relationship. I mean, your last sentence is a difficult question, but didn't Hitler basically go along with the law to get elected after being arrested? I honestly don't have any answers regarding free speech or lessening the foundations of democracies in dealing with hate groups like fascists. And they're not idiots, so they're going to work within the law. Not to mention my concept of free speech is based on the United States and not as well versed on other European countries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 05:06
|
|
|
KazigluBey posted:Strawman argument, nobody is arguing this in the thread. I contend that you can't entrust a party with the power to determine which of its political rivals will and won't be outlawed in a system that bans particular ideologies. I say again, what new laws would bar fascism while allowing legitimate movements? The existing hate speech laws should be enforced and in many cases should already be in use. I'm arguing that violence would be appropriate against Golden Dawn and Occupy Pedophilyaj, but not any group that identifies as fascist. It comes down to the kind of democracy we want to have versus the kind of democracy that is realistic in a political system. Shes Not Impressed posted:I mean, your last sentence is a difficult question, but didn't Hitler basically go along with the law to get elected after being arrested? Hitler seized power after losing seats in the second 1932 federal election. My argument still comes from the duty to preserve fairly, democratically elected governments, since the Nazis never formed a legitimate government. edit 2: In my opinion, the United States has the weakest hate speech laws in the First World and they should be strengthened to be more like the laws in Canada or Europe. If I could design an ideal constitution to preserve democracy, that would be a key part. Chamale fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Aug 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 05:06
|
|
|
Why are people acting like fascists are a legitimate political theory/group? They're not. They don't have policy differences. For fascists violence is not a tool like it is for legitimate political positions, it is an end. Murdering and dominating everybody other than the in-group is the entire point of fascism. Fascism is not correctly characterized as politics, but as organized crime using politics as a pretext. We should no more offer fascism the protections and rights we offer to political positions and philosophies than we should the Mafia or the Aryan Brotherhood. All fascist organizing is organizing for mass murder. All fascist propaganda is incitement to mass murder. Pretending that fascism is a valid political philosophy and pretending that its adherents are anything other than criminals and would-be criminals is suicidal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 05:30
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Why are people acting like fascists are a legitimate political theory/group? They're not. They don't have policy differences. For fascists violence is not a tool like it is for legitimate political positions, it is an end. Murdering and dominating everybody other than the in-group is the entire point of fascism. Fascism is not correctly characterized as politics, but as organized crime using politics as a pretext. We should no more offer fascism the protections and rights we offer to political positions and philosophies than we should the Mafia or the Aryan Brotherhood. I think the tricky part people keep getting hung up on is distinguishing fascists from other right-wing parties. Some of them are obviously fascist, but hell, there's already been one poster in here talking about how liberals are secret fascists in disguise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 05:34
|
|
|
Chamale posted:edit 2: In my opinion, the United States has the weakest hate speech laws in the First World and they should be strengthened to be more like the laws in Canada or Europe. If I could design an ideal constitution to preserve democracy, that would be a key part. A couple quick points that have been bothering me while lurking this thread: For one, isn't it a bit too late to just say "bash the fash" where at least some of the Eastern European countries are concerned? Aren't we basically talking about civil war in at least some of those countries, insofar as the police and military are cooperating with the fascists already? Wouldn't the proper parallel here not be Britain in 1936 but Germany sometime in the rly '30s? It sounds as if there are basically tiny Neo-Nazi movements in the UK, France, Germany, etc, where the Eastern European parties are already enjoying an alarming degree of state support. Secondly, are we going to learn the other lesson of the Holocaust? I've always thought it was a terrible failing of the allied powers that we weren't willing to accept refugees from Germany in any numbers worth mentioning. It seems to me that the best option, internationally, is to take anyone who wants to get out, and leave fascist governments to collapse under the weight of their own ineffectiveness. Particularly where Russia is concerned, the world cannot survive a third world war.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 05:42
|
|
|
I'm not really that worried about Russia going fascist and starting World War 3. The Russian oligarchy has no interest in that kind of destabilizing effect and if it looked like fascist elements were becoming a threat they'd have no problem using the army to brutally crush them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 05:53
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:There's a stupid popular stereotype in some countries that France is a cowardly nation, dating to the military collapse in 1940, but many Allied troops died fighting hardened Vichy soldiers. The military collapse which happened due to the French military planning to fight the previous war again; which is why Americans making this allegation produce enough irony to reverse the earth's magnetic field. Pope Guilty posted:Fascism is not correctly characterized as politics, but as organized crime using politics as a pretext. We should no more offer fascism the protections and rights we offer to political positions and philosophies than we should the Mafia or the Aryan Brotherhood. Organized crime doesn't have violence as its end.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 05:57
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Organized crime doesn't have violence as its end. No, organized crime just seeks to get as much power and money as fast as possible, disregarding any laws that get in its way. Just like fascists. That's what it ultimately boils down to. Power and money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 06:01
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:No, organized crime just seeks to get as much power and money as fast as possible, disregarding any laws that get in its way. Just like fascists. That's what it ultimately boils down to. Power and money. Unless you're taking this to the logical conclusion of "all capitalists are literally fascists" this isn't a meaningful definition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 06:03
|
|
|
Chamale posted:If I could design an ideal constitution to preserve democracy
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 06:11
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:No, organized crime just seeks to get as much power and money as fast as possible, disregarding any laws that get in its way. Just like fascists. That's what it ultimately boils down to. Power and money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 06:19
|
|
|
HEGEL CURES THESES posted:You don't think their ideology is important at all? Everyone seeks power. I think it is important to the leaders, not so much the people they are leading. computer parts posted:Unless you're taking this to the logical conclusion of "all capitalists are literally fascists" this isn't a meaningful definition. That actually is an interesting argument, capitalism with no regulations, no laws, would basically be fascism, just with a corporate bent instead of government. Unfortunately I don't think this is the topic for such discussion. I'm going to just respectfully bow out, I just wanted to comment that there was a common thread: Namely the acquisition of power and money by any means available, and drat the laws that get in the way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 06:45
|
|
|
Why can't you just use the state's law enforcement and intelligence forces to monitor fascist parties? Someone said earlier that Germany is the country that's least likely to see the fascists gain any sort of influence at the political level again, and it's my understanding that the German state has a pretty intense apparatus set up for monitoring and controlling them. We have all of this surveillance technology and tools for keeping tabs on people. Why not allow fascist parties to advertise and stand for elections, but make it so they're effectively only pretending to be a real party? Pope Guilty posted:Why are people acting like fascists are a legitimate political theory/group? They're not. They don't have policy differences. For fascists violence is not a tool like it is for legitimate political positions, it is an end. Murdering and dominating everybody other than the in-group is the entire point of fascism. Fascism is not correctly characterized as politics, but as organized crime using politics as a pretext. We should no more offer fascism the protections and rights we offer to political positions and philosophies than we should the Mafia or the Aryan Brotherhood. Now, that I'm saying this is potentially risky because it says that fascists have actual ideas. These are dangerous ideas and they should be opposed. But it's not like murder in a fascist system is just senseless. There's absolutely a reason behind it and it's quite discriminating for ideological reasons. You could make the argument that Marxist-Leninist class war is murderous, and historically it's demonstrated that. But it's not senseless. Killing large numbers of targeted enemies is necessary in order to build a classless society. Yes, fascists are gangsters and murderers. This is obvious. You're right when you say that fascist organizing is organizing for mass murder. But they're not simply murderers because they're evil and like murder. There's pretty much no actual historians and experts on fascism who will say that. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Aug 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 06:50
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:Why can't you just use the state's law enforcement and intelligence forces to monitor fascist parties? Someone said earlier that Germany is the country that's least likely to see the fascists gain any sort of influence at the political level again, and it's my understanding that the German state has a pretty intense apparatus set up for monitoring and controlling them. In the US at least, the cops don't really care. They're too busy monitoring and infiltrating Islamic and leftist groups to care about people who also hate Muslims and leftists. Look at how liberal states treat fascist organizing compared to leftist organizing and figure out the difference.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 07:00
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:In the US at least, the cops don't really care. They're too busy monitoring and infiltrating Islamic and leftist groups to care about people who also hate Muslims and leftists. Look at how liberal states treat fascist organizing compared to leftist organizing and figure out the difference. I grew up in a really conservative, right-wing place in the South. And the cops were racists. I had a friend whose dad was one of these racist, right-wing cops. They absolutely hated the skinheads in the area and thought they were scum. The cops knew all the skinheads' names, monitored them and kept tabs on them. If they saw them driving around, the cops would follow them and call their location in. The reason wasn't political, but just because the skinheads were dangerous, violent people who didn't like cops. Of course the police didn't like them. It's not like if you're a racist Neo-Nazi skinhead in America, the cops just leave you alone like "oh no big deal the communists are who we're worried about!" I don't think that's how it really is. Though if you're in an anarchist or communist group, then yeah you'll be monitored by federal and state police. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 07:15 on Aug 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 07:08
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I'm not really that worried about Russia going fascist and starting World War 3. The Russian oligarchy has no interest in that kind of destabilizing effect and if it looked like fascist elements were becoming a threat they'd have no problem using the army to brutally crush them. Isn't that the issue, that the Russian government is already closer to fascism than the majority of the world? Gays in Russia aren't hunted down and killed by the government, but are deprived of freedom of speech and assembly. Fascists are winning, not with street marches but by being an appealing source of support for a rapidly growing unpopular government. That said, I don't think a fascist government or as others called it "para-fascist" government would go to war in this day in age, at least in the traditionalist sense. They would just fund a proxy war. Basically, ww2 can't happen because of nukes, but there can be plenty of Spanish Civil Wars. Nazis and fascists are seen as a threat to public order, but sadly their ideas are not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 07:19
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:That actually is an interesting argument, capitalism with no regulations, no laws, would basically be fascism, just with a corporate bent instead of government.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 07:28
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn9tJ-sJhmM I watched this video the other day and thought it was good. He argues for the continued distinction between neo-nazism and far right-wing groups (which posters have argued). I've never seen the video of the Golden Dawn member slapping the female parliamentary member across the face either. Around 13:00, he begins to discuss, in his opinion, why Germany has tried and failed to ban these types of parties. One reason he cites is because of undercover agents.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 07:28
|
|
|
I mostly lurk here, but there are a couple of points I'd like to raise to everyone wringing their hands over those poor fascists: 1.) there's a fairly Relevant quote that goes something like "don't allow the tools of democracy to those who would use them to destroy democracy." Isn't this a pretty good objective line marking where "bashing" might be called for? 2.) I'm also rather amused that not one of the hand-wringers has addressed that fascism is violence, rather they've glossed over that to demand that the antifa wait until the fascists act to respond. Overall, this is beginning to remind me of the ideal vs reality dichotomy of the Redfit Free Speech thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 08:01
|
|
|
So here is a question: Do you guys consider parties like FN, PVV, FPÖ etc. as fascist? What about more edge cases like Jobbik or MHP? Where would you put these movements in a fascism scale of 1 and 10 where 10 is Golden Dawn? I think getting our definitions down is very important here because otherwise we might be talking about a bunch of separate things when we say "rise" of fascism in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 08:02
|
|
|
To be perfectly honest, I would be Jobbik along with the Golden Dawn in that scenario. They just happen to support a specific variant of Hungarian fascism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 08:12
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:Why can't you just use the state's law enforcement and intelligence forces to monitor fascist parties? Someone said earlier that Germany is the country that's least likely to see the fascists gain any sort of influence at the political level again, and it's my understanding that the German state has a pretty intense apparatus set up for monitoring and controlling them. If you check the links I posted earlier in this thread on page two or three, the monitoring of fascists by the police in Germany hasn't prevented them from gaining in popular support and committing violent acts against people, in part because there are suspicions that members of the police force sympathise with these groups.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 08:59
|
|
|
Is there anywhere that can offer a fairly good history on fascism?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 09:00
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:Is there anywhere that can offer a fairly good history on fascism? Check out "The Anatomy of Fascism" by Robert Paxton.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 09:06
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:Is there anywhere that can offer a fairly good history on fascism? A history of Fascism, 1914-1945 by Stanley G. Payne offers a good introduction and overview. But, as the title suggest, the primary focus is on the origins of the ideology and the interwar fascist movements, not neo-fascism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 09:20
|
|
|
Sakarja posted:A history of Fascism, 1914-1945 by Stanley G. Payne offers a good introduction and overview. But, as the title suggest, the primary focus is on the origins of the ideology and the interwar fascist movements, not neo-fascism. Also is it not arguable that fascism has its origins earlier? I mean just look at the forces in the Dreyfus trials. You had nationalist journals calling for a purification of France and the placing of their enemies in ovens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 09:25
|
|
|
I am intrigued by the fact that while the handwringers are at great pains to work out who exactly are violent fascists (a tautology) they accuse anyone who suggests violence may be necessary to combat fascism of being a Stalinist and thus just as bad. Ardennes posted:To be perfectly honest, I would be Jobbik along with the Golden Dawn in that scenario. They just happen to support a specific variant of Hungarian fascism. Indeed Jobbik have actively undermined democracy and civil society in multiple ways whereas with FN etc we have only reasonable and very strong suspicions they would also do so. So Jobbik is factually much less of an edge case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 09:28
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:I am intrigued by the fact that while the handwringers are at great pains to work out who exactly are violent fascists (a tautology) they accuse anyone who suggests violence may be necessary to combat fascism of being a Stalinist and thus just as bad. No, the point is that if we try to combat "fascism" by immediately resorting to violence, it is too easy for legitimate political movements to be labelled as fascism and destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 09:33
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Or well we could nip it in the bud and beat the poo poo out of them before it even gets to that point. Preventive medicine is after all much more efficient than treating the disease afterward. I think this is the kind of tone that might set a few peoples teeth on edge. Like yeah, fascism is terrible, inherently violent and their 'peaceful' marches tend to go through the neighborhoods of disenfranchised immigrants in displays of blatant intimidation. I'm all for opposing fascists at every turn, but it's the direct jump to beat the poo poo out of them violence that's disquieting. You can counter their intimidation by showing by showing up to counter protest, shout down speakers at rallies and the like. Come ready for violence and if they start something hit them back harder, but the idea of expressly showing up with the intention of using violence to silence a nominally peaceful display seems unnecessary and brutish. As an example of what I mean, the Battle of Cable Street started as a possibly nonviolent attempt to keep fascists from marching and only those opposing the fascist march only ended up using violence when they were pressed. If the intent was to use violence to silence fascists it would have been better to wait till the fascists were marching and then descend on them en masse. I'm not trying to say that this is an actual problem in most anti-fascism efforts, it's just that I can see how some of the rhetoric could give people the wrong impression.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 09:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Also is it not arguable that fascism has its origins earlier? I mean just look at the forces in the Dreyfus trials. You had nationalist journals calling for a purification of France and the placing of their enemies in ovens. Oh, absolutely. I didn't mean to imply that the book exclusively covers the years 1914-1945.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 09:50
|
|