|
HEGEL CURES THESES posted:What? No. Fascism's a belief system with a distinct set of elements. There are books on it and everything. I'm sorry, I'm clearly not as knowledgeable on the subject as I should be. I'm just gonna bow out here and resume lurking, hopefully I'll learn a thing or two. Please forgive me for muddying up the discussion.
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:18 |
|
|
ZombieReagan posted:Thing is, vandalizing a mosque or harassing customers in a restaurant is something that's already against the law. You'd probably have a solid case for a hate crime for the swastika as well (I'm not a lawyer, just guessing). It's when you go suppressing political speech specifically that poo poo gets dicey, even if its really lovely behaivior. You gotta look at it from the side of "what happens if some shithead lawyer uses this law against some group that it wasn't intended for" and go from there. If they're just prancing around on the street feeling oppressed, then there isn't much of a law that can be made that isn't going to end up becoming a problem for everyone else at some other point. Eventually authoritarian governments are going to turn around and bite you back, even if they started out well intentioned. So could you give me an example of a time when anti-fascist laws have been abused to attack a non-fascist group? Because I really don't think this is the problem you make it our to be, especially when so-called liberal democratic states have been able to muddle along while literally running murder programs against leftist groups.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
i think its deeply naive and ideology-par-excellence to believe that fascist movements can be uprooted via disorganized public beatings or petit civil insurrection or armed punk rock skinhead gangs or whatever. anyone abbreviating fascism as "fash" and adopting pop culture totems like doc martens and suspenders should be properly understood as fashion idols and fanboys incapable of affecting change outside of their milieu. suppression of the death drive at the foundation won't come via the whims of the ego. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
ZombieReagan posted:Thing is, vandalizing a mosque or harassing customers in a restaurant is something that's already against the law. You'd probably have a solid case for a hate crime for the swastika as well (I'm not a lawyer, just guessing). It's when you go suppressing political speech specifically that poo poo gets dicey, even if its really lovely behaivior. You gotta look at it from the side of "what happens if some shithead lawyer uses this law against some group that it wasn't intended for" and go from there. If they're just prancing around on the street feeling oppressed, then there isn't much of a law that can be made that isn't going to end up becoming a problem for everyone else at some other point. Eventually authoritarian governments are going to turn around and bite you back, even if they started out well intentioned. Police response to those incidents tends to land somewhere between 'gently caress' and 'all'. If they turn up at all, they tend to take statements, knock on some doors if they can be arsed and then gently caress off (probably to HASSLE SOME HONEST MOTORISTS ARGLE BARGLE). The police cannot be relied upon to do a drat thing, especially when it comes to 'non-violent' hate crimes, out of a mixture of institutional racism, inadequate legal coverage and just sheer unadulterated who-gives-a-gently caress. analogy6 posted:i think its deeply naive and ideology-par-excellence to believe that fascist movements can be uprooted via disorganized public beatings or petit civil insurrection or armed punk rock skinhead gangs or whatever. anyone abbreviating fascism as "fash" and adopting pop culture totems like doc martens and suspenders should be properly understood as fashion idols and fanboys incapable of affecting change outside of their milieu. suppression of the death drive at the foundation won't come via the whims of the ego. Slavoj is that you
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
Serious post: despite studying the intellectual history of Fascism seriously for years, I was basically of the position that you should just let them speak, marketplace of ideas, take the moral high ground, all violence is deplorable, and so forth, until I read the EDL thread and was exposed to antifa arguments. So thanks for that, I guess?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
Crane Fist posted:Every time we talk about opposing fascism the same tedious liberal shits start wittering about how using violence against fascists legitimises them, how it fuels their persecution complexes, how you're never going to win hearts and minds with violence, etc. which makes absolutely no sense to me. Personal experience and all, but when I was heavily involved in the antifa, the idea of direct action wasn't to make some kind of point about power dynamics or inferiority in society, it was to demonstrate without shadow of a doubt that carrying on fascist poo poo was not a safe thing to do. That spraypainting swastikas on the mosque or starting poo poo in the kebab shop might just get you a kicking. That you shouldn't start railing in the pub about the fuckin' muzzies or the thievin' paki cunts or whatever because someone in there with you might just jump you once you left. Basically, to let shitheads believe what they like and never act on it because changing minds is loving hard but changing behaviour is something we can do. Ok, but this whole argument has got me wondering how this translate in countries in which fascists are much more organized and popular with the general public? In places where antifa have equal or greater numbers and fascist members of the police and military are at least somewhat constrained by the rule of law this might work great, but what about in Greece or Russia where the fascist are more organized, more violent and have the much more open support of the state? When people bring up the fact that a lot of violence was aimed at the Nazi part when it was on the rise, the response seems to be 'yeah, well they just did violence better.' So what's the solution when coordinated mob violence fails, as it failed to curb the worst outbreak of fascism in history? What policies or actions can we push for to reverse fascism in countries in which we aren't physically present to punch people? Is it trying to organize and promote antifa groups in those countries? Would the Russian government allow that kind of thing to happen? Again, I'm all for violence in self defense and confronting fascist groups in an attempt to prevent them from spreading their message. It just seems like using violence as a first resort isn't a workable solution when you're not in a place where fascists are already kind of powerless. And I'm wondering about what level of fascist thought meets the threshold for violence. I guess this will be labeled handwringing and bullshit hypotheticals, but I was honestly surprised that you're advocating for violence against someone for making lovely comments in a public place. It has me wondering if there's some consensus on what level of violence is acceptable and why doing anything above that level would be wrong? Beating someone to the ground for something they said? Continuing to hit them once they're on the ground, since a few missing teeth would be a good reminder not to act in a fascist way? If a group of fascist is stubborn enough that that doesn't dissuade them, is lethal force potentially an option to get through the message that they aren't welcome?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
cafel posted:Ok, but this whole argument has got me wondering how this translate in countries in which fascists are much more organized and popular with the general public? In places where antifa have equal or greater numbers and fascist members of the police and military are at least somewhat constrained by the rule of law this might work great, but what about in Greece or Russia where the fascist are more organized, more violent and have the much more open support of the state? When people bring up the fact that a lot of violence was aimed at the Nazi part when it was on the rise, the response seems to be 'yeah, well they just did violence better.' So what's the solution when coordinated mob violence fails, as it failed to curb the worst outbreak of fascism in history? What policies or actions can we push for to reverse fascism in countries in which we aren't physically present to punch people? Is it trying to organize and promote antifa groups in those countries? Would the Russian government allow that kind of thing to happen? The model of "bash the fash" isn't so much a tit-for-tat series of petty retaliations from the other side, but rather the usage of fascism's main tactics (the literal dictionary definition of "terrorism") against it in order to quell it or stop it from escalating. You can choose to be a fascist (or antifa essentially), but you can't choose to not be a non-native/minority/disabled person.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
cafel posted:Ok, but this whole argument has got me wondering how this translate in countries in which fascists are much more organized and popular with the general public? In places where antifa have equal or greater numbers and fascist members of the police and military are at least somewhat constrained by the rule of law this might work great, but what about in Greece or Russia where the fascist are more organized, more violent and have the much more open support of the state? When people bring up the fact that a lot of violence was aimed at the Nazi part when it was on the rise, the response seems to be 'yeah, well they just did violence better.' So what's the solution when coordinated mob violence fails, as it failed to curb the worst outbreak of fascism in history? quote:What policies or actions can we push for to reverse fascism in countries in which we aren't physically present to punch people? Is it trying to organize and promote antifa groups in those countries? Would the Russian government allow that kind of thing to happen?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Mf1H07bGOw Speaking from the experience living in the Baltics, the neo-nazi movement picked up lots of steam in the late 00s, with big "XYZ for XYZians" marches (ex above), but has slowly petered out. The main forces fueling them were the crisis and the youth trying to find an identity for themselves - the state supported nationalism based on glorified, but recently constructed history, and aggressive masculinity. Since then it has been slowly waning away, funnily enough because a lot of patriotic neo-nazis have emigrated to the UK or Ireland for better manual labour job opportunities, but also because they have been repressed by the conservative political establishment - neonazi parades make the local politicians very embarrassed in front of the European Union, so even the biggest heart-bleeding-for-the-Fatherland politicians have denounced the violent thugs and their brand of state-worship. Besides that, the Baltics don't have any Asians or Africans, so they can't readily identify and blame an established underclass for all their ills (there are the Russians, but most neo-nazis have Russian grandparents or friends). The bash the fash sentiment in this thread is funny to read, the local antifa persons I know are lovely, well-meaning pudgy/spindly dweebs, they would come out badly maimed by muscular local neo-nazis who also carry knives/clubs. Is anyone here a bodybuilding active antifascist?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:I'm sorry, I'm clearly not as knowledgeable on the subject as I should be. I'm just gonna bow out here and resume lurking, hopefully I'll learn a thing or two. Please forgive me for muddying up the discussion. Don't feel too bad about it. While there is a ton of work out there exploring fascism generally and this or that variant of it in particular, at root fascism as ideology is incoherent once you move beyond a few core principles that all strains seem to have (is violent, exclusionary, lovely, etc). I may have missed it in the last several pages, but (oddly) I don't think anyone's linked Umberto Eco's essay on Ur-Fascism which, though dealing with classical forms, is still largely relevant to modern fascist movements.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
analogy6 posted:i think its deeply naive and ideology-par-excellence to believe that fascist movements can be uprooted via disorganized public beatings or petit civil insurrection or armed punk rock skinhead gangs or whatever. anyone abbreviating fascism as "fash" and adopting pop culture totems like doc martens and suspenders should be properly understood as fashion idols and fanboys incapable of affecting change outside of their milieu. suppression of the death drive at the foundation won't come via the whims of the ego. Read about Cable Street, AFA in the UK, Red Warriors in France- history basically proves you wrong and that it is part of an effective strategy, even granting the existence of doc marten anti fash-ion hipsters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 01:21
|
|
|
Unluckyimmortal posted:Civil war, basically. It is, more or less, what happened in Spain. It didn't happen in Germany because the Nazis were simply too strong by 1933, and despite the fact that Hitler basically told everyone what he was going to try in Mein Kampf, not enough Germans really anticipated the specific chain of events that would follow. "Bash the fash" doesn't mean a thing when "the fash" is some double digit percentage of the people in your country, predominantly younger and male. At this point, crushing the Golden Dawn would be a job for the Greek army, or a foreign army even, nobody else is going to be able suppress them. Yeah, the point of antifa work is stop fascist organizing from getting to the point where armies have to get involved. You can either pull the weeds as they appear or you can come into your garden after months and go "where did all these weeds come from? I guess there's nothing to be done."
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Yeah, the point of antifa work is stop fascist organizing from getting to the point where armies have to get involved. You can either pull the weeds as they appear or you can come into your garden after months and go "where did all these weeds come from? I guess there's nothing to be done."
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
Unluckyimmortal posted:By the time government apparatuses are helping out, well, the place is overgrown, I think. Right, and if there's anything that can be done to avoid getting to that point, it's imperative to do so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 02:02
|
|
|
Most militaries share more in common with fascistic outlooks than leftist ones. Take a look in GiP and you'll notice it has the biggest concentration of right wing posters left on SA. This is not a coincidence. I would never depend on the Military to save us from fascism. By the time it got to that point they'd of been infiltrated and turned just like the rest of the state.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 02:47
|
|
|
Unluckyimmortal posted:The Holodomor? I mean, if you literally look at just the loving wikipedia article it looks pretty much like "industrialized mass-murder" to me. It's just a different industry and state apparatus, but plenty modern. Yeah no that's not what industrialized mass-murder or industrialized genocide means, unless you're willing to say that several of the Indian famines were also industrialized mass-murder on the part of the UK I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 02:48
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Yeah no that's not what industrialized mass-murder or industrialized genocide means, unless you're willing to say that several of the Indian famines were also industrialized mass-murder on the part of the UK I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Don't feel too bad about it. While there is a ton of work out there exploring fascism generally and this or that variant of it in particular, at root fascism as ideology is incoherent once you move beyond a few core principles that all strains seem to have (is violent, exclusionary, lovely, etc). I may have missed it in the last several pages, but (oddly) I don't think anyone's linked Umberto Eco's essay on Ur-Fascism which, though dealing with classical forms, is still largely relevant to modern fascist movements. http://ah.brookes.ac.uk/resources/griffin/coreoffascism.pdf quote:Fascism is best approached as a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anticonservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and national context in which it appears, and has drawn on a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to articulate itself as a body of ideas, slogans, and doctrine. In the inter-war period it manifested itself primarily in the form of an elite-led ‘armed party’ which attempted, mostly unsuccessfully, to generate a populist mass movement through a liturgical style of politics and a programme of radical policies which promised to overcome the threat posed by international socialism, to end the degeneration affecting the nation under liberalism, and to bring about a radical renewal of its social, political and cultural life as part of what was widely imagined to be the new era being inaugurated in Western civilization. The core mobilizing myth of fascism which conditions its ideology, propaganda, style of politics, and actions is the vision of the nation’s imminent rebirth from decadence. I'm concerned about the open-ended nature of violence that committed anti-fascist activists endorse, however. One of the issues that compounded the inter-war crisis in Germany and Italy (the only time fascism has ever been successful) was a competing revolutionary challenge from the extreme left. This helped destabilize liberal states and undermine their legitimacy. When the traditional conservative forces were too weak to reassert their authority, the fascists were the only ones left to approach the mass public and convince them that fascism was the only means to end the crisis. quote:If the sense of nationhood was in the main highly stable, if nationalistic aspirations were generally sated, if the legitimacy of existing constitutional arrangements was widely taken forgranted, if liberal taboos against violence or radical change were well entrenched, then even a profound socio-economic and political crisis would tend to be resolved without whipping up extra-systemic or extra-parliamentary forces. In other words, without a generalized `sense making-crisis' (Platt, 1980) which called the status quo and all prevailing norms into question, fascism was impotent. But where objective pressures on the legitimacy of the existing liberal order created a resonance with widely held misgivings about its legitimacy and its capacity to deal with the crisis, it cast doubt on whether the constitutional arrangements in which it is embodied were not in fact alien to the national tradition, or an obstacle to its regeneration. At this point a fascist organization could find itself with increased room to manoeuvre, and become a fully fledged `mass movement'. I don't think this is a risk in the U.S. or Britain, or other North American and West European states, though. For example, if you look at the implicitly white nationalist Ron Paul movement from 2008-2012, it was unable to mount a credible challenge to the state, and resorted to staging non-violent putsches against state GOP conventions (mostly unsuccessfully) because violence was not an option in the American political system - the U.S. no longer tolerates organized violence by paramilitary groups during election seasons. In these countries, I think the threat from fascism is primarily localized racial hatred and occasional violence. And the risk of small-scale or lone wolf terrorism. I don't think fascists can pose a revolutionary challenge to these states because they're too pluralized and multicultural to give fascists the space to form a political movement that can grow (on a small scale) for more than a few years before imploding, which is what we've seen over and over again. We saw it with the N.F., the BNP and now the EDL. Since fascism is based on violence and needs to use violence, a state which does not tolerate organized extra-legal violence means fascism cannot thrive. But this doesn't mean I'm saying you shouldn't be able to use extra-legal violence in a defensive manner against the threat they pose on the local level, like in city neighborhoods. But Greece is different. After Ilias Kasidiaris's attack on two rival MPs on live T.V., the Golden Dawn's popularity grew, and it allowed the party to present itself as (literally, in this case) hitting back at the enemies of the state. It shows that the taboo against political violence in the context of a weak liberal state in Greece has broken down. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Aug 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
Antifa is basically a last ditch option when capitalism and liberal democracy has failed. Basically, Russia/Greece/Hungary are once-developed or socialized countries where that has already happened. I believe you can easily say those countries are at the point where either you fight them or you surrender because a return to "normalcy" isn't going to happen. The middle class in those countries has already collapsed or is well on the road to collapsing, there is no need to appeal to "comfortable people at home." One issue is the soft assertion that this may not happened in Western Europe and North America, and to be honest I don't buy it. The Tea Party or the UKIP even the FN are not at quite that level yet, but is a matter of time and eventually the right edge will become harder. (Also, Neo-confederates can easily be rolled as precursors to more open fascism.) Basically the answer to the question: it's a simple waiting game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 04:18
|
|
|
You could justify banning public fascist rallies and such without leaving the door open to banning say any communist or libertarian march, since fascism is inherently a death threat. They can't peacefully protest or speak about anything, every time they show up and give speeches in say a Jewish neighbourhood, they literally are promising death or harm to the residents.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 04:39
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Antifa is basically a last ditch option when capitalism and liberal democracy has failed. Basically, Russia/Greece/Hungary are once-developed or socialized countries where that has already happened. Yes, who could forget about that bastion of capitalistic liberal democracy that is Russia in the 20th century.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Yes, who could forget about that bastion of capitalistic liberal democracy that is Russia in the 20th century. Where have you been for the last two decades?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Yes, who could forget about that bastion of capitalistic liberal democracy that is Russia in the 20th century. You forgot the 1990s my friend.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 04:54
|
|
|
Unluckyimmortal posted:The Holodomor? I mean, if you literally look at just the loving wikipedia article it looks pretty much like "industrialized mass-murder" to me. It's just a different industry and state apparatus, but plenty modern. Exterminating people is not an ideological principal of Marxism-Leninism. Mistakes where made, but they where mistakes. Stalin or Mao never set up gas chambers to kill people en mass for the glory of communism. Fascism revels in death and suffering, it's the entire loving point. Would you let Hitler stand on a street corner and preach? Every fascist is Hitler. Hitler doesn't get another chance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 05:03
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:One issue is the soft assertion that this may not happened in Western Europe and North America, and to be honest I don't buy it. The Tea Party or the UKIP even the FN are not at quite that level yet, but is a matter of time and eventually the right edge will become harder. (Also, Neo-confederates can easily be rolled as precursors to more open fascism.) Since fascists thrive and grow stronger because they use violence, a society in which political violence is not tolerated means that fascism doesn't have the oxygen it needs. And ultimately most Americans reject those groups. And the demographics and character of the U.S. are changing even more. I'm pretty optimistic. A strong liberal state is the best bulwark against fascism. Unfortunately, there are too many anti-fascists who are also anarchists and communists. If you're an anarchist it's going to be in your interest to destabilize the state, but the problem is that it gives an opening for fascists to thrive. I don't know what to do about Russia. But if you want to get into bar fights with skinheads, then knock yourself out. Also, funny and depressing story, but I contacted the local anti-racist activists in my town about a Death in June concert coming here. They're a neo-Nazi band and there's another (local) band that's explicitly about as fascist as it gets opening the show - at an anarchist-owned venue no less! I was told that not only is Death in June not a fascist band, but the real fascists are the Republican Party in the U.S. I went to a free show by the opening band once at a local art space here, just to see it with my own eyes, and there were literal blackshirts walking around. So this is going on at an anti-fascist venue. Yeah. Real anti-fascists. Rutibex posted:Exterminating people is not an ideological principal of Marxism-Leninism. Mistakes where made, but they where mistakes. Stalin or Mao never set up gas chambers to kill people en mass for the glory of communism. I think you should wonder why fascists end up exterminating millions. It's not just because they're sadists or like murdering people. It's considered a necessary measure in order to purge the nation of unhygienic elements. They don't even believe the people they're killing are people. They think they're exterminating lice or something. It's a giant housecleaning operation with human beings being gassed instead of insects. When applied on a national level that means mass murder. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Aug 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:I hear you. What I'm saying is: neo-Confederates and their ilk would be more dangerous in a society that tolerated organized and extra-legal paramilitary violence. That is the thing, a liberal society is not sustainable under capitalism, eventually it will eat itself and fascists will be the rather inevitable result. So while under a reformed capitalist system (social democracy/fdr-style fordism) violence will be minimized, once reformism breaks down, violence will arise. Every bit of austerity moves the doomsday clock a little more in that direction. Read inbetween the lines in the news, and you can see how the "necessary reforms" in Europe and North America only push their populations closer to that line.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 05:34
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:I hear you. What I'm saying is: neo-Confederates and their ilk would be more dangerous in a society that tolerated organized and extra-legal paramilitary violence. Yeah dude, wanting to eliminate income inequality is on par with people burning mosques. Just because "communist" and I put them in quotes on purpose dictators did horrible things doesn't mean it is core to the ideology. True leftists don't hope for that poo poo to happen. In fascism it is a feature not a bi-product.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 05:40
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:Mistakes were made. Stalin and Mao used different methods to kill millions for different reasons. Lenin believed that there was no progress without revolutionary violence to counteract reactionary violence. When applied on a sufficiently large scale I'd say mass terror and murder is inexorably bound up in Marxism-Leninism. And it's been demonstrated. People are going to die during a revolutionary period. Once a country has come to that point there is no stopping the death; revolution is not a tea party. I think the key difference between communist and fascist mass death is that once the communist revolution is over it decreases; once fascism is firmly established the death is stepped up and becomes more systematic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 05:46
|
|
|
^ I think that's probably true. I think communist regimes are on the whole better than fascist ones, of course, even though I'm not a Marxist or communist. It was clearly preferable for Stalin to win the war than Hitler.Ardennes posted:That is the thing, a liberal society is not sustainable under capitalism, eventually it will eat itself and fascists will be the rather inevitable result. Jakse posted:Yeah dude, wanting to eliminate income inequality is on par with people burning mosques. Just because "communist" and I put them in quotes on purpose dictators did horrible things doesn't mean it is core to the ideology. True leftists don't hope for that poo poo to happen. In fascism it is a feature not a bi-product. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Aug 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 05:47
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:^ I think that's probably true. I think communist regimes are on the whole better than fascist ones, of course, even though I'm not a Marxist or communist. It was clearly preferable for Stalin to win the war than Hitler. That is only if you think any communist nation in our history is actually fulfilling the ideology. I think myself, and many other leftists, would disagree that those regimes embody anything that we believe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 05:51
|
|
|
quote:Maybe so. But I think a society can weather such a crisis if, as Griffin puts it: "the sense of nationhood was in the main highly stable, if nationalistic aspirations were generally sated, if the legitimacy of existing constitutional arrangements was widely taken forgranted, [and] if liberal taboos against violence or radical change were well entrenched." I would counter they are all meaningless in the face of economics. The West, as long as it stays on its course, it will see those taboos inevitably erode.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 05:52
|
|
|
Jakse posted:That is only if you think any communist nation in our history is actually fulfilling the ideology. I think myself, and many other leftists, would disagree that those regimes embody anything that we believe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 05:53
|
|
|
Communist regimes kill people, as do liberal regimes. In both cases, the killing is a means to an end. It serves a purpose. In a fascist regime, and I feel like there's several posters not getting this, killing is a purpose. Violence and force and domination are means to liberals and communists. They are ends to fascists. Liberals and communists kill and dominate people to take power or achieve political ends. Fascists seek power in order to kill and dominate people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 05:53
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Communist regimes kill people, as do liberal regimes. In both cases, the killing is a means to an end. It serves a purpose. In a fascist regime, and I feel like there's several posters not getting this, killing is a purpose. Violence and force and domination are means to liberals and communists. They are ends to fascists. Liberals and communists kill and dominate people to take power or achieve political ends. Fascists seek power in order to kill and dominate people. The response I'm hearing to this, is that such a society is not possible or sustainable, and that we should launch pre-emptive attacks on domestic fascist movements since the society is going to collapse anyways and violence will make a comeback. But (1) I don't think that's guaranteed and (2) allows violence to become self-justifying in the absence of an existential fascist threat. It's similar to how radical primitivists will say that since civilization is doomed anyways, we better speed up bombing hydroelectric dams or whatever so we can forestall worse damage later. I don't think Socrates would look kindly on this syllogism. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Aug 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 06:10
|
|
|
Organized political violence is kind of what drives the world, though. A world without organized political violence is a fantasy. A pleasant fantasy, possibly, but a fantasy nonetheless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Organized political violence is kind of what drives the world, though. A world without organized political violence is a fantasy. A pleasant fantasy, possibly, but a fantasy nonetheless. So you are saying violence is an integral part of you politics then?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 07:25
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:So you are saying violence is an integral part of you politics then? I'm saying violence is an integral part of all politics. I mean, sure, there's pacifists out there, but pacifist beliefs are generally either blind to the violence that enables them to exist or naive as all hell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 07:58
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:I'm saying violence is an integral part of all politics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 08:09
|
|
|
Of course organized violence is instrumental to how the world works. But it's generally not a sign of a stable society when you have armed vigilante groups (of whatever political orientation) running around beating each other up, or killing each other, or committing all kinds of violence. Fascists benefit when there are armed clashes happening on the streets - which is why fascist groups like the EDL try to provoke it. It's important for anti-fascists to not fall into their hands. Though I have reiterated that self-defense can be necessary depending on the local circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 08:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:18 |
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:http://www.enetenglish.gr/?i=news.en.article&id=1353  I don't get it, he's perfectly Greek looking to me (I grew up in South Sydney, lots of Greeks). I have to say though, i wonder what 'racialist' babblery these chucklefucks would come up with for the leader of the Golden Dawn: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 10:02
|
|
