Sfdebris.net

LittleRaven wrote:No, you just over simplify. Violence helps extreme political movements. In this country, right now, that's mostly Nazis. In other countries, it'll be Communists, or religious zealots, or just plain authoritarians.

The historical record does not support this analysis. The British Union of Fascists declined after Cable Street, the National Front after Lewisham, the German-American Bund never got off the ground. We can move away from strictly Nazi organizations and look to other extremist organizations as well. How did being the target of violence fair for the Tamil Tigers? Or the Red Army Faction? How is ISIS doing at the moment? While organizations may wish to use violence, no one wants to be on the receiving end of it. Because coercion works. If group A applies enough pressure to group B, group B will do as group A wishes. Any statement by group B otherwise is just bluster and grandstanding.

LittleRaven wrote:These sorts of movements have a very hard time gaining traction in a stable, civil society - which is why the first thing any of them will attempt to do will be to stop society from being civil.

And yet, after decades of peaceful, civil society in the US, here we are, with a growing and radicalizing right wing. The election of Trump really debunks the notion that extremist groups need violence to grow and that ignoring them is the best solution. Civil societies remain civil through active means, they can't just be put on autopilot and be expected to function forever. For the past 40~50~60 years or so America has been tolerant of the intolerant, and now we're paying for that.

LittleRaven wrote:There's a massive difference between 'punching Nazis' and 'having the state punch Nazis.'

I agree. The former is far more effective than the latter. As you yourself stated in an earlier post "You really think the Civil War ended slavery? Even here in the US? ... Surely you're not that naive. The civil war ended the legalized practice of slavery, but it did very little to dent the idea that some people should be treated as property to be bought and sold" The state is all too often unwilling or unable to protect its citizens. It destroyed legalized slavery but didn't do anything to stop the worst exploitation of the Jim Crow south, not for decades at least. People are under no moral obligation to suffer just because the state sanctions it. If the state won't punch Nazis, the people will.

And I find it rather disturbing that members (including a moderator) of this forum are openly advocating acts of illegal vigilante violence which could be construed as terrorism.

The normalization of such things as an acceptable part of mainstream politics, no matter how unsympathetic the targets, open the door to the break down of democracy and the rule of law, and (taken to their ultimate extreme) civil war.

Edit: I also strongly question the implication that the choices are "ignore/tolerate Nazis" or "commit vigilante violence against Nazis", with no other options in between. A classic false dilemma.

I don't believe anyone hear is advocating ignoring the problem. Merely disagreeing that a whole-hearted embrace of militia or vigilante violence is the best way of addressing it.

I recognize that there are several avenues to oppose Nazis, some of them not involving direct action. However...

If you ignore them or tell them to get lost then their ideas can't be as easily defended.

Courtesy of GandALF

I will never understand this strange insistence that acting like fascists somehow makes them better than the fascists. Unsurprisingly, yes, normal people do indeed see ideological extremists as ideological extremists. And for supposedly being "anti-fascist," antifa acts exactly like them. One of the more historically ironic aspects to that is that a of fascists were actually rather fond of wearing black (Mussolini's Blackshirts and the Schutzstaffel most prominently).

Wild_Kraken wrote:

LittleRaven wrote:No, you just over simplify. Violence helps extreme political movements. In this country, right now, that's mostly Nazis. In other countries, it'll be Communists, or religious zealots, or just plain authoritarians.

The historical record does not support this analysis. The British Union of Fascists declined after Cable Street, the National Front after Lewisham, the German-American Bund never got off the ground.

Yeah, and the National Socialist German Workers Party just faded away after that failed Beer Hall Putsch that resulted in the death of 16 of their members, not to mention all those street fights. Oh, wait...

And yet, after decades of peaceful, civil society in the US, here we are, with a growing and radicalizing right wing.

Which could just as easily be seen as a reaction to increasing radicalization on the left.

The election of Trump really debunks the notion that extremist groups need violence to grow and that ignoring them is the best solution. Civil societies remain civil through active means, they can't just be put on autopilot and be expected to function forever.

Yeah, we have police and military for that kind of stuff.

For the past 40~50~60 years or so America has been tolerant of the intolerant, and now we're paying for that.

This country is vastly improved over its past, and this has largely been due to working peacefully from within the system, not through violence in the streets. Actually, violence in the streets has actually helped to bring about further erosion of civil liberties.

Admiral X wrote:I will never understand this strange insistence that acting like fascists somehow makes them better than the fascists. Unsurprisingly, yes, normal people do indeed see ideological extremists as ideological extremists. And for supposedly being "anti-fascist," antifa acts exactly like them.

In what meaningful way are they acting like fascists? Have they formed a political party in an attempt to win power through electoral means? Have they staged a coup? Have they formed strict hierarchical organizations with top down authoritarian control based on the fuhrerprinzip? Have they sent communists, trade unionists, and catholics to concentration camps? Have they passed laws against miscegenation? Have they engaged in an economic boycott of an ethnoreligious group with the aim of further marginalizing that group? Have they invaded another country and used poison gas on a population in an attempt to recreate the Roman Empire? Have they burned modern art on a massive scale, saving only a few works to be displayed in "degenerate art" exhibitions? Have they done scientific experimentation on human beings? Have they...

But no, totally, when you don't count all the things that made fascists fascists than anti-fascists act just like them.

Admiral X wrote:One of the more historically ironic aspects to that is that a of fascists were actually rather fond of wearing black (Mussolini's Blackshirts and the Schutzstaffel most prominently).

This is ironic, but not for the reason you think. The color black was associated with anarchists and anarchism decades and decades before the first fascist parties.

Wild_Kraken wrote:

LittleRaven wrote:No, you just over simplify. Violence helps extreme political movements. In this country, right now, that's mostly Nazis. In other countries, it'll be Communists, or religious zealots, or just plain authoritarians.

The historical record does not support this analysis. The British Union of Fascists declined after Cable Street, the National Front after Lewisham, the German-American Bund never got off the ground.

Yeah, and the National Socialist German Workers Party just faded away after that failed Beer Hall Putsch that resulted in the death of 16 of their members, not to mention all those street fights. Oh, wait...

And yet, after decades of peaceful, civil society in the US, here we are, with a growing and radicalizing right wing.

Which could just as easily be seen as a reaction to increasing radicalization on the left.

The election of Trump really debunks the notion that extremist groups need violence to grow and that ignoring them is the best solution. Civil societies remain civil through active means, they can't just be put on autopilot and be expected to function forever.

Yeah, we have police and military for that kind of stuff.

For the past 40~50~60 years or so America has been tolerant of the intolerant, and now we're paying for that.

This country is vastly improved over its past, and this has largely been due to working peacefully from within the system, not through violence in the streets. Actually, violence in the streets has actually helped to bring about further erosion of civil liberties.

The Romulan Republic wrote:And I find it rather disturbing that members (including a moderator) of this forum are openly advocating acts of illegal vigilante violence which could be construed as terrorism.

Yeah, me, too. Never thought I'd be in agreement with you on something, but it looks like we agree on this at least.

Wild_Kraken wrote: In what meaningful way are they acting like fascists?

Using violence and the threat of violence to put down dissenting views, political opponents, and groups they have "other"'d. Violating the rights of others and claiming it as their right to do so. Claiming the police are the instrument of the corrupt system which they must protect the poor ignorant masses from.

Have they formed a political party in an attempt to win power through electoral means?

There are elements within the Democratic Party and the media which are doing their best to do so.

Have they staged a coup?

Not yet, but, you know

Have they formed strict hierarchical organizations with top down authoritarian control based on the fuhrerprinzip? Have they sent communists, trade unionists, and catholics to concentration camps? Have they passed laws against miscegenation?

You jest, but they've started on that path with identity politics and this "cultural appropriation" absurdity which is very much based in prejudice and segregationist principles.

But no, totally, when you don't count all the things that made fascists fascists than anti-fascists act just like them.

Pure hyperbole.

This is ironic, but not for the reason you think. The color black was associated with anarchists and anarchism decades and decades before the first fascist parties.

Yeah, and the swastika was a religious symbol for many other cultures (including some Native American ones) long before the Nazis started using their own version of it, but what group is the symbol typically associated with today?

Admiral X wrote:Yeah, and the National Socialist German Workers Party just faded away after that failed Beer Hall Putsch that resulted in the death of 16 of their members, not to mention all those street fights. Oh, wait...

If anything, the rise of Hitler was an example of the left not being proactive enough or taking the threat seriously. Had the communist party accepted being coalition partners with the social democrats there would have been no crisis that lead to Hindenburg appointing Hitler chancellor.

Admiral X wrote:Which could just as easily be seen as a reaction to increasing radicalization on the left.

Ah yes, the increasing radicalization of the left, holding such awful notions like there should be better healthcare. So radical. Gay people should be allowed to marry. Borderline extremism! Wanting the police to shoot less black people. That's basically what Pol Pot wanted, right? There is absolutely nothing the left in America had done that is in any way proportional to the radicalization of the right. And it's kinda gross that you're making excuses for the right.

Admiral X wrote:Yeah, we have police and military for that kind of stuff.

This statement is so naive that I almost can't bring myself to make a pithy sarcastic comment.

Because the military and police of a state have never been co-opted by fascists before! Let's just move the Orpo and Kripo and Whermacht out of the way...

Admiral X wrote:This country is vastly improved over its past, and this has largely been due to working peacefully from within the system, not through violence in the streets. Actually, violence in the streets has actually helped to bring about further erosion of civil liberties.

Yeah, it was largely due to working peacefully. Just so long as you ignore the bloody history of labor rights, gay rights, and civil rights, sure. Peaceful.