NikkolasKing posted:

So what is Antifa and why did someone recommend against joining them?

I Googled Antifa and got their Dallas site. (I live in Fort Worth) It says it's against white supremacists. Sounds good to me, especially given the times we live in.

yellowyams posted:

Rumors of Russian influence ops in Europe. https://twitter.com/JeffersonObama/status/798598839468847104 Don't know if it's true but I can readily believe it and it sounds very very dangerous for anyone opposed to the rise of fascism. I don't really know how to combat this, but it needs a lot more attention than it's getting, maybe contact reporters and call for an investigation from the government? I don't know much about European govt but I imagine most of the leaders probably don't want to be overthrown by fascists so if someone informed them they need to nip this in the bud urgently then I would hope they'd listen. Russia already played a huge role in getting Trump elected, it would be a tragedy for that to happen to the rest of the world.

yellowyams posted:

Rumors of Russian influence ops in Europe. https://twitter.com/JeffersonObama/status/798598839468847104 Don't know if it's true but I can readily believe it and it sounds very very dangerous for anyone opposed to the rise of fascism. I don't really know how to combat this, but it needs a lot more attention than it's getting, maybe contact reporters and call for an investigation from the government? I don't know much about European govt but I imagine most of the leaders probably don't want to be overthrown by fascists so if someone informed them they need to nip this in the bud urgently then I would hope they'd listen. Russia already played a huge role in getting Trump elected, it would be a tragedy for that to happen to the rest of the world.

NikkolasKing posted:

So what is Antifa and why did someone recommend against joining them?

I Googled Antifa and got their Dallas site. (I live in Fort Worth) It says it's against white supremacists. Sounds good to me, especially given the times we live in.

Pinch Me Im Meming posted:

Nothing about this is news. Russia sponsors all and every far-right parties in Europe, this is known.

HorseLord posted:

HorseLord posted:

Antifa is Anti-Fascist, whoever told you not to join probably thinks they impede on fascists' right to free speech or some liberal poo poo like that. Antifa are good and keep us all safe.

yellowyams posted:

Is anybody going to do anything? They have a very high probability of succeeding if no one else tries to interfere. And if it's that well-known then why don't I see any discussion on it? Consider also that you are politically active and are more informed than the average person, but it's the average person who needs to know about this.


You can scoff at it for being a silly thought and it is, but we lost America to Trump because of this. It is extremely dangerous and Europe can't afford to fall any further into fascism or the world will really be hosed. Something has to be done.

HorseLord posted:

You did not "America to Trump" because of some evil KGB plot. Trump won because he's extremely popular with the people he markets himself to and Hillary Clinton is the leftovers from the '08 primaries.

yellowyams posted:

There were many small factors leading to Trump victory, pretending it was just one thing is mistaken. Many Trump supporters I saw online leading up to the election were vocally pro-Putin and were engaging in conversation with white millenials susceptible to their ideology. I didn't think it was a big deal back then because I figured there wasn't enough of them to actually influence enough people but here we are and Trump only won by a slim margin compared to Hillary's overall vote count. Even if it's blown out of proportion I think the world is at huge risk right now and we can't afford to overlook even the smallest things that might tip the scale.

Agnosticnixie posted:

Antifa are mostly cool and good and most of the crying about them being bad comes from moderate who think fascistlivesmatter and would probably think premature anti-fascism is unironically a thing.

b0ner of doom posted:

Violence is never ok, and i think people that want to do violence or otherwise practice those types of owns on their political opponents should try being happier in life and finding fun and constructive things to do instead

b0ner of doom posted:

Violence is never ok, and i think people that want to do violence or otherwise practice those types of owns on their political opponents should try being happier in life and finding fun and constructive things to do instead

b0ner of doom posted:

Violence is never ok, and i think people that want to do violence or otherwise practice those types of owns on their political opponents should try being happier in life and finding fun and constructive things to do instead

HorseLord posted:

So the next time I'm attacked for being a gay communist I should be cool with it and let myself be murdered?

Or I could break with liberalism, and be completely happy in the knowledge that the suppression of certain political beliefs (for example, that blacks and homos should die) is necessary before they become political actions (blacks and homos being killed).

You know, I think I'll take the latter. Some dudes conspiring to genocide us is not the same as them having a difference of opinion with us.

MizPiz posted:

Adorable, what are your views on international relations?

b0ner of doom posted:

Hmmm, this type of conspiratorial thinking is definitely not good for one's mood or stress levels which have clear links to physical ailments as well. I'd personally recommend taking a relaxing hike in nature.

Agnosticnixie posted:

There is no conspiratorial thinking in believing that a gay man is significantly more at risk than a straight man. What the gently caress is wrong with you?

TomViolence posted:

Bottom line with regards to antifa: fascists exert their power by making the streets unsafe for minorities through marching around like belligerent swaggering fucknuggets. They are not taking to the streets to protest, a fascist march is a show of force. If they're allowed to walk the streets unimpeded they become bolder and more willing to intimidate and assault anyone who gets in their way. It is necessary to obstruct them, confront them and even use force to prevent them from thinking they rule the streets. Think the UK in the 1970s, think Germany in the 30s, any time nazis or their descendents think they can swagger en masse down a street in a non-white neighbourhood unimpeded people get hurt, people get killed and the fascists are able to terrorise the population with impunity.

Antifascist actions are about protecting and reducing harm to minority communities and about preventing the growth of the sort of toxic, violent and terroristic climate that openly marching fascists engender.

b0ner of doom posted:

This seems like the kind of post that would be made in GBS, being rife with the kind of for the lulz cynicism that has no place is a civilized forum like this one

Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals posted:

In the field of action, the first question that arises in the determination of means to be employed for particular ends is what means are available. This requires an assessment of whatever strengths or resources are present and can be used. It involves sifting the multiple factors which combine in creating the circumstances at any given time, and an adjustment to the popular views and the popular climate. Questions such as how much time is necessary or available must be considered. Who, and how many, will support the action? Does the opposition possess the power to the degree that it can suspend or change the laws? Does its control of police power extend to the point where legal and orderly change is impossible? If weapons are needed, then are appropriate weapons available? Availability of means determines whether you will be underground or above ground; whether you will move quickly or slowly; whether you will move for extensive changes or limited adjustments; whether you will move by passive resistance or active resistance; or whether you will move at all. The absence of any means might drive one to martyrdom in the hope that this would be a catalyst, starting a chain reaction that would culminate in a mass movement. Here a simple ethical statement is used as a means to power.

A naked illustration of this point is to be found in Trotsky's summary of Lenin's famous April Theses, issued shortly after Lenin's return from exile. Lenin pointed out: "The task of the Bolsheviks is to overthrow the Imperialist Government. But this government rests upon the support of the Social Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, who in turn are supported by the trustfulness of the masses of people. We are in the minority. In these circumstances there can be no talk of violence on our side." The essence of Lenin's speeches during this period was "They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet." And it was.

Mahatma Gandhi and his use of passive resistance in India presents a
striking example of the selection of means. Here, too, we see the
inevitable alchemy of time working upon moral equivalents as a
consequence of the changing circumstances and positions of the Have-
Nots to the Haves, with the natural shift of goals from getting to keeping.

Gandhi is viewed by the world as the epitome of the highest moral
behavior with respect to means and ends. We can assume that there are
those who would believe that if Gandhi had lived, there would never have been an invasion of Goa or any other armed invasion. Similarly, the politically naive would have regarded it as unbelievable that that great apostle of nonviolence, Nehru, would ever have countenanced the
invasion of Goa, for it was Nehru who stated in 1955: "What are the basic elements of our policy in regard to Goa? First, there must be peaceful methods. This is essential unless we give up the roots of all our policies and all our behavior . . . We rule out nonpeaceful methods entirely." He was a man committed to nonviolence and ostensibly to the love of mankind, including his enemies. His end was the independence of India from foreign domination, and his means was that of passive resistance. History, and religious and moral opinion, have so enshrined Gandhi in this sacred matrix that in many quarters it is blasphemous to question whether this entire procedure of passive resistance was not simply the only intelligent, realistic, expedient program which Gandhi had at his disposal; and that the "morality" which surrounded this policy of passive resistance was to a large degree a rationale to cloak a pragmatic program with a desired and essential moral cover.

Let us examine this case. First, Gandhi, like any other leader in the field of social action, was compelled to examine the means at hand. If he had had guns he might well have used them in an armed revolution against the British which would have been in keeping with the traditions of revolutions for freedom through force. Gandhi did not have the guns, and if he had had the guns he would not have had the people to use the guns. Gandhi records in his Autobiography his astonishment at the passivity and submissiveness of his people in not retaliating or even wanting revenge against the British: "As I proceeded further and further with my inquiry into the atrocities that had been committed on the people, I came across tales of Government's tyranny and the arbitrary despotism of its officers such as I was hardly prepared for, and they filled me with deep pain. What surprised me then, and what still continues to fill me with surprise, was the fact that a province that had furnished the largest number of soldiers to the British Government during the war, should have taken all these brutal excesses lying down."

Gandhi and his associates repeatedly deplored the inability of their people to give organized, effective, violent resistance against injustice and tyranny. His own experience was corroborated by an unbroken series of reiterations from all the leaders of India — that India could not practice physical warfare against her enemies. Many reasons were given, including weakness, lack of arms, having been beaten into submission, and other arguments of a similar nature. Interviewed by Norman Cousins in 1961. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru described the Hindus of those days as "A demoralized, timid, and hopeless mass bullied and crushed by every dominant interest and incapable of resistance."

Faced with this situation we revert for the moment to Gandhi's assessment and review of the means available to him. It has been stated that if he had had the guns he might have used them; this statement is based on the Declaration of Independence of Mahatma Gandhi issued on January 26, 1930, where he discussed "the fourfold disaster to our country." His fourth indictment against the British reads: "Spiritually, compulsory disarmament has made us unmanly, and the presence of an alien army of occupation, employed with deadly effect to crush in us the spirit of resistance, has made us think we cannot look after ourselves or put up a defense against foreign aggression, or even defend our homes and families . . ." These words more than suggest that if Gandhi had had the weapons for violent resistance and the people to use them this means would not have been so unreservedly rejected as the world would like to think.

On the same point, we might note that once India had secured
independence, when Nehru was faced with a dispute with Pakistan over
Kashmir, he did not hesitate to use armed force. Now the power
arrangements had changed. India had the guns and the trained army to
use these weapons.* Any suggestion that Gandhi would not have approved the use of violence is negated by Nehru's own statement in that 1961 interview: "It was a terrible time. When the news reached me about Kashmir I knew I would have to act at once — with force. Yet I was greatly troubled in mind and spirit because I knew we might have to face a war — so soon after having achieved our independence through a philosophy of nonviolence. It was horrible to think of. Yet I acted. Gandhi said nothing to indicate his disapproval. It was a great relief, I must say. If Gandhi, the vigorous nonviolent, didn't demur, it made my job a lot

• Reinhold Niebuhr, "British Experience and American Power," Christianity and Crisis,
Vol. 16, May 14, 1956, page 57:

"The defiance of the United Nations by India on the Kashmir issue has gone comparatively unobserved. It will be remembered that Kashmir, a disputed territory, claimed by both Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India, has a predominately Muslim population but a Hindu ruler. To determine the future political orientation of the area, the United Nations ordered a plebiscite. Meanwhile, both India and Pakistan refused to move their troops from the zones which each had previously occupied. Finally, Nehru took the law into his own hands and annexed the larger part of Kashmir, which he had shrewdly integrated into the Indian economy. The Security Council, with only Russia abstaining, unanimously called upon him to obey the United Nations directive, but the Indian government refused. Clearly, Nehru does not want a plebiscite now for it would surely go against India, though he vaguely promises a plebiscite for the future.

"Morally, the incident puts Nehru in a rather bad light.... When India's vital interests were at stake, Nehru forgot lofty sentiments, sacrificed admirers in the New Statesman and Nation, and subjected himself to the charge of inconsistency.

"This policy is either Machiavellian or statesmanlike, according to your point of view. Our consciences may gag at it, but on the other hand those eminently moral men, Prime Minister Gladstone of another day and Secretary Dulles of our day could offer many parallels of policy for Mr. Nehru, though one may doubt whether either statesman could offer a coherent analysis of the mixture of modes which entered into the policy. That is an achievement beyond the competence of very moral men. This strengthened my view that Gandhi could be adaptable."

Confronted with the issue of what means he could employ against the
British, we come to the other criteria previously mentioned; that the kind of means selected and how they can be used is significantly dependent upon the face of the enemy, or the character of his opposition. Gandhi's opposition not only made the effective use of passive resistance possible but practically invited it. His enemy was a British administration characterized by an old, aristocratic, liberal tradition, one which granted a good deal of freedom to its colonials and which always had operated on a pattern of using, absorbing, seducing, or destroying, through flattery or corruption, the revolutionary leaders who arose from the colonial ranks. This was the kind of opposition that would have tolerated and ultimately capitulated before the tactic of passive resistance.

Gandhi's passive resistance would never have had a chance against a
totalitarian state such as that of the Nazis. It is dubious whether under those circumstances the idea of passive resistance would even have occurred to Gandhi. It has been pointed out that Gandhi, who was born in 1869, never saw or understood totalitarianism and defined his opposition completely in terms of the character of the British government and what it represented. George Orwell, in his essay Reflection on Gandhi, made some pertinent observations on this point: "... He believed in 'arousing the world,' which is only possible if the world gets a chance to hear what you are doing. It is difficult to see how Gandhi's methods could be applied in a country where opponents of the regime disappear in the middle of the night and are never heard of again. Without a free press and the right of assembly it is impossible, not merely to appeal to outside opinion, but to bring a mass movement into being, or even to make your intentions known to your adversary."

From a pragmatic point of view, passive resistance was not only possible, but was the most effective means that could have been selected for the end of ridding India of British control. In organizing, the major negative in the situation has to be converted into the leading positive. In short, knowing that one could not expect violent action from this large and torpid mass, Gandhi organized the inertia: he gave it a goal so that it became purposeful. Their wide familiarity with Dharma made passive resistance no stranger to the Hindustani. To oversimplify, what Gandhi did was to say, "Look, you are all sitting there anyway — so instead of sitting there, why don't you sit over here and while you're sitting, say 'Independence Now!'"

This raises another question about the morality of means and ends. We
have already noted that in essence, mankind divides itself into three
groups; the Have-Nots, the Have-a-Little, Want-Mores, and the Haves.
The purpose of the Haves is to keep what they have. Therefore, the Haves want to maintain the status quo and the Have-Nots to change it. The Haves develop their own morality to justify their means of repression and all other means employed to maintain the status quo. The Haves usually establish laws and judges devoted to maintaining the status quo; since any effective means of changing the status quo are usually illegal and/or unethical in the eyes of the establishment, Have-Nots, from the beginning of time, have been compelled to appeal to "a law higher than man-made law." Then when the Have-Nots achieve success and become the Haves, they are in the position of trying to keep what they have and their morality shifts with their change of location in the power pattern.

Eight months after securing independence, the Indian National Congress
outlawed passive resistance and made it a crime. It was one thing for
them to use the means of passive resistance against the previous Haves,
but now in power they were going to ensure that this means would not be
used against them! No longer as Have-Nots were they appealing to laws
higher than man-made law. Now that they were making the laws, they
were on the side of man-made laws! Hunger strikes — used so effectively
in the revolution — were viewed differently now too. Nehru, in the interview mentioned above, said: "The government will not be influenced by hunger strikes ... To tell the truth I didn't approve of fasting as a political weapon even when Gandhi practiced it."

Again Sam Adams, the firebrand radical of the American Revolution,
provides a clear example. Adams was foremost in proclaiming the right of revolution. However, following the success of the American Revolution it was the same Sam Adams who was foremost in demanding the execution of those Americans who participated in Shays' Rebellion, charging that no one had a right to engage in revolution against us!

Moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means. Machiavelli's blindness to the necessity for moral clothing to all acts and motives — he said "politics has no relation to morals" — was his major weakness.

All great leaders, including Churchill, Gandhi, Lincoln, and Jefferson,
always invoked "moral principles" to cover naked self-interest in the
clothing of "freedom," "equality of mankind," "a law higher than man-made law," and so on. This even held under circumstances of national crises when it was universally assumed that the end justified any means. All effective actions require the passport of morality.

The examples are everywhere. In the United States the rise of the civil
rights movement in the late 1950s was marked by the use of passive
resistance in the South against segregation. Violence in the South would have been suicidal; political pressure was then impossible; the only recourse was economic pressure with a few fringe activities. Legally blocked by state laws, hostile police and courts, they were compelled like all Have-Nots from time immemorial to appeal to "a law higher than man-made law." In his Social Contract, Rousseau noted the obvious, that "Law is a very good thing for men with property and a very bad thing for men without property." Passive resistance remained one of the few means available to anti-segregationist forces until they had secured the voting franchise in fact. Furthermore, passive resistance was also a good defensive tactic since it curtailed the opportunities for use of the power resources of the status quo for forcible repression. Passive resistance was chosen for the same pragmatic reason that all tactics are selected. But it assumes the necessary moral and religious adornments.

However, when passive resistance becomes massive and threatening it
gives birth to violence. Southern Negroes have no tradition of Dharma,
and are close enough to their Northern compatriots so that contrasting
conditions between the North and the South are a visible as well as a
constant spur. Add to this the fact that the Southern poor whites do not operate by British tradition but reflect generations of violence; the future does not argue for making a special religion of nonviolence. It will be remembered for what it was, the best tactic for its time and place.

As more effective means become available, the Negro civil rights
movement will divest itself of these decorations and substitute a new
moral philosophy in keeping with its new means and opportunities. The
explanation will be, as it always has been, "Times have changed." This is happening today.

Desmond posted:

Thanks for all the great info here. I'm not overly involved in politics, but am going to start now, because to me it's not just "politics"--it's the fight against indifference and the fight for real people and the environment. That said, I've been involved in environmental organizations for years in Canada and have found that the most satisfactory ones aren't just marching (which is also good) but getting dirty, quite literally. I have been volunteering with the Streamkeepers who do hands-on work on the tiniest of little creeks just to ensure salmon are not blocked from making their way from the rivers to the ocean. That means laying gravel for salmon eggs, removing invasive plants, walking the creek in hipwaders and clearing blockages that prevent salmon from swimming through, etc. Maybe this could be an allegory for politics.

My question has to do with anyone's knowledge of Canadians working in solidarity with the USA. A ton of Canadians are quite affected by the US election. (We do have our own issues, and I am involved on the environmental ones here.) But I'm also a US citizen still, with permanent resident status in Canada, and don't know if there's any real organizations up here that work with the US. I just got involved with the Canadians going to the Million Women March, which a bunch of us are going to...but there has to be something beyond that. I do want to also support the organizations doing the legwork, like the Southern Poverty Law Center and ACLU.

b0ner of doom posted:

I'm just a happy person that wishes for other to be happy too, and value themselves instead of owning themselves via anger.

Toph Bei Fong posted:

Rules for Radicals

themrguy posted:

I have some free time, so I'll get started with the main thing that I took away, the rest when I get home.

Ok, a couple of practical bits of stuff that worked for me. I was working for an organization that pushed environmental issues/ some tax increases in a normally conservative part of CA. Here's one of the things that worked for me

Don't talk about "the environment" or "the planet", but about the impacts on people

Talking about "saving the planet" (or the polar bears, or endangered tree snails) can bounce off of people who've learned to associate that with crazy hippies/democrats/etc. But if you talk about how their county has one of the highest rates of asthma in children in the country, they'll loving listen. Especially if you can give them hard facts (40% increase in lung cancer for example), and a plan of action (elect new members to the Air Quality Management District who will do something about it). Always do whatever you can to make the effects concrete and real to them, to their families. This is isn't about saving the planet, we couldn't kill the planet if we wanted to, it's about keeping it a place where we can live comfortably. Frame it as though you could give less of a poo poo about the sea turtles, it's the children you're worried about.

This presumes you're in an area that's somewhat hostile territory to these kind of ideas, rather than a place like the bay area.

themrguy posted:

I have some free time, so I'll get started with the main thing that I took away, the rest when I get home.

Ok, a couple of practical bits of stuff that worked for me. I was working for an organization that pushed environmental issues/ some tax increases in a normally conservative part of CA. Here's one of the things that worked for me

Don't talk about "the environment" or "the planet", but about the impacts on people

Talking about "saving the planet" (or the polar bears, or endangered tree snails) can bounce off of people who've learned to associate that with crazy hippies/democrats/etc. But if you talk about how their county has one of the highest rates of asthma in children in the country, they'll loving listen. Especially if you can give them hard facts (40% increase in lung cancer for example), and a plan of action (elect new members to the Air Quality Management District who will do something about it). Always do whatever you can to make the effects concrete and real to them, to their families. This is isn't about saving the planet, we couldn't kill the planet if we wanted to, it's about keeping it a place where we can live comfortably. Frame it as though you could give less of a poo poo about the sea turtles, it's the children you're worried about.

This presumes you're in an area that's somewhat hostile territory to these kind of ideas, rather than a place like the bay area.

Captain Fargle posted:

If you're in Canada there's very little you actually can do for America specific-organisations like Southern Poverty Law Center and the ACLU besides sending them a donation. Beyond that you're going to have to look for groups that are actually active in Canada. If you're not planning on going back to the US any time soon then joining up with one of the Canadian political parties is also a solid plan. The NDP are probably the one who's agenda is most agreeable to posters here in this thread but they have very little power right now as I understand it and if you feel your time would be better served by trying to push the Liberals leftwards then that's also an option open to you.

Dr. Arbitrary posted:

I KNEW IT!

Asehujiko posted:

What can a Dutch goon do to help stop Wilders in 2017? Labour is currently in a coalition with the VVD and is giving no signs of ever planning to listening to their voters again and our other left leaning parties all had knee mounted gatling guns surgically installed to be able to shoot themselves in the foot faster(CONSERVATIVE DEATH PANELS!!! BAN EUTHANASIA!!!)