Five myths about antifa

[Nepperhan]

Where have I disputed the definition of fascism?

If you do not recognize it as a right wing movement you veer from what political scientists believe. If this is not you, I apologize.

 

[RhodesianSon]

I don’t dispute that fascism as an ideology is right wing. But that doesn’t mean certain tactics and even ideas can’t be picked up across a broad spectrum of the political field.

 

[Theo520]

I’d like some verification of your claims.

ROFL
I retorted to each point you made in your post
yet you ignored them all in your response

you just deflected​

 

[Nepperhan]

I retorted to each point you made in your post
yet you ignored them all in your response

I’d like verification of the accuracy your retorts.

Are you used to operating in a mileau in which no proof is required of allegations? That’s different from my league.

 

[Victoria33]

As I’ve said on this forum two times previous, the BBC has stopped labeling people “right wing” or “left wing” extremists and just started calling them “extremists”. A real definition does not really work. Anti-government people on both ends of the spectrum.

 

[JonNC]

I think those that do vote definitely vote for the Democrat Party, but a lot of them probably don’t vote.

Maybe.

Anarchists often don’t on principle.

True anarchists wouldn’t. Antifa are not anarchists. They are fascistic in the tactics and Marxist in their ideology. Better said, they’re opposed to freedom and individual rights. We fought this philosophy in WWII and the Cold War.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Balto1]

That’s an extremely funny graphic, sincere thanks for posting.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

True anarchists wouldn’t. Antifa are not anarchists. They are fascistic in the tactics and Marxist in their ideology. Better said, they’re opposed to freedom and individual rights.

I am not interested in arguing over semantics or abstract frameworks for understanding political movements (as that graph you embedded is an example of). Regardless of whether or not they are “true” anarchists by some abstract standard, there is a historical movement that was a part of the “First International” that Marx was involved with and had a huge influence on 20th century political history. This movement was associated with the left, claimed to be opposed to the state, and called itself anarchist and often also communist. I’m not really sure what right wing anarchism would be (some kind of philosophical anarchism?) but the anarchism I speak of was a very real historical movement that, “real anarchism” or not, existed and continues to sort of exist among some adherents today. These are the anarchists I refer to as being part of antifa, and absolutely a lot of these groups and individuals oppose voting on principle.

 

[JonNC]

That’s an extremely funny graphic, sincere thanks for posting.

Very accurate, indeed.

 

[WingedHussar]

Antifa is a single organization​

Decentralized leadership but certainly capable of coordination, moving people across state lines and organizing a hit squad as we just saw in Portland. Start watching some footage of these commies in action. Once you know what to look for, the signs of teamwork and preplanned tactics become obvious. Otherwise, the cops would be able to stamp these riots out easily. Training, teamwork, gear, and strategy beat will always beat supposedly uncoordinated tactics.

Antifa masterminds violence at Black Lives Matter protests.​

Are they out there operating? Absolutely yes. I have yet to see anyone who claims they are the masterminds. Nice strawman though.

Antifa is affiliated with the Democratic Party.​

The relationship is more like Sinn Fein and the IRA. They only target entities and individuals that are opposed to the Democrats.

Antifa is funded by liberal financiers like George Soros.​

Not directly but someone is paying their bail and transportation costs. You can find newspaper accounts of arrested rioters having bail in the tens of thousands of dollars paid for. Now if we are to believe that the rioters are all uncoordinated desperate people, they clearly cannot be coughing that money up themselves.

Antifascists are the ‘real fascists.’​

Wrong, Antifa are commies. Fascists are just the natural reaction to communists. If you do not want fascists taking over, stand up to commies before it becomes necessary as in Spain and Chile.

 

[JonNC]

I am not interested in arguing over semantics or abstract frameworks for understanding political movements (as that graph you embedded is an example of).

I think the graphic is rather concrete. Not abstract at all.

Regardless of whether or not they are “true” anarchists by some abstract standard, there is a historical movement that was a part of the “First International” that Marx was involved with and had a huge influence on 20th century political history. This movement was associated with the left, claimed to be opposed to the state, and called itself anarchist and often also communist.

Most of us are aware of the “influence” Marx had on about 100 million lives in the 20th century.

I’m not really sure what right wing anarchism would be (some kind of philosophical anarchism?) but the anarchism I speak of was a very real historical movement that, “real anarchism” or not, existed and continues to sort of exist among some adherents today.

Here it is: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups.
It actually moves to the right from libertarianism. It is undesirable because it is unrealistic. You can’t have a vacuum of power.

These are the anarchists I refer to as being part of antifa, and absolutely a lot of these groups and individuals oppose voting on principle.

They’ve proven themselves to be authoritarian. That’s not anarchist.
They’ve stated they are opposed to free markets. That’s authoritarian, not anarchist.
They interfere with the rights of others as a matter of practice. That’s authoritarian, not anarchist.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

They only target entities and individuals that are opposed to the Democrats.

They have targeted Democratic figures though. “Tear Gas Ted” Wheeler couldn’t go out in public without being harassed by protestors.

If you do not want fascists taking over, stand up to commies before it becomes necessary as in Spain and Chile.

And in Germany and Italy?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

It is absolutely abstract. So is that definition you posted. They are totally abstract, divorced from real historical movements or figures.

I’m not necessarily trying to discredit your framework, but the most prominent “anarchists” historically have been left wing and have been associated with socialism, and the people involved in antifa will be largely acting within that tradition. These are facts. Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, the Makhnovists, the CNT-FAI, and so on were all associated with this anarchist movement. I am not interested in arguing over whether or not they are “real anarchists”, but I will call them anarchists when I refer to them as part of this historical movement.

Most of us are aware of the “influence” Marx had on about 100 million lives in the 20th century.

Well the anarchists and Marxist generally didn’t get along. Marx wrote texts against Proudhon and Bakunin, and their disputes broke the First International. Likewise the Bolsheviks crushed the anarchists in the Russian Civil War, and so on. But the fact is that this anarchist movement I am describing was associated with socialism.

 

[JonNC]

And in Germany and Italy?

This is important for Americans to recognize. Communists and fascists fighting against each other: do not take sides. They are equally evil. The were not good people on either side at Charlottesville. Good Americans should reject both because, once you get past the red and brown shirts, there is not a dime’s worth of difference.
Here conservatives and true liberals should find common ground.

 

[WingedHussar]

The common ground between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives are feckless opposition who play a defined role which is necessary for the liberals to push forward.

 

[OraLabora]

We had whole armies which were antifa in WWII.

Touché! 8910

 

[JonNC]

It is absolutely abstract. So is that definition you posted. They are totally abstract, divorced from real historical movements or figures.

Only for those who Want to divorce themselves from their history, and claim they are something they are not.

I’m not necessarily trying to discredit your framework, but the most prominent “anarchists” historically have been left wing and have been associated with socialism, and the people involved in antifa will be largely acting within that tradition.

Then they are not true anarchists, by definition.
Someone who favors socialism, be the communist or fascist, are not anarchist because socialism is government ownership or strict control of the means of production.

These are facts. Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, the Makhnovists, the CNT-FAI, and so on were all associated with this anarchist movement. I am not interested in arguing over whether or not they are “real anarchists”, but I will call them anarchists when I refer to them as part of this historical movement.

And modern American socialists call themselves democratic socialists, when the terms are actually contradictory.
They can call themselves whatever they want.

 

[JonNC]

The common ground between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives are feckless opposition who play a defined role which is necessary for the liberals to push forward.

There is a foundational belief that individual rights take primacy over government power. Liberals are not progressives. Progressives are authoritarian.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

I hope you one day come to see the problem with trying to understand political phenomena through entirely abstract definitions. Your libertarian framework which posits a dichotomy between “no state” and “lots of state” is totally ineffective at actually describing history or real social movements.

At any rate, I’ve clarified what I am referring to when I talk about anarchists so please stop replying with that same post whenever I use the word. I don’t care what the “true definition” of anarchism is according to American libertarians. It should be enough for you to know what I mean.

 

[JonNC]

I hope you one day come to see the problem with trying to understand political phenomena through entirely abstract definitions.

Quite concrete. Authoritarian vs. individual rights. There is little in politics more concrete than that.

Your libertarian framework which posits a dichotomy between “no state” and “lots of state” is totally ineffective at actually describing history or real social movements

It isn’t a dichotomy. It is a scale. Government is a necessity, but it’s primary function is to protect individual rights. If government doesn’t do that, it has no reason to exist and citizens have no reason to defend it.
There can be differences in beliefs into how much power government has. I think the American republic has historically struck close to the proper balance on that continuum, with the notable exception of slavery and segregation. Even there, we’ve moved dramatically in the right direction.
On that continuum to the left, one finds authoritarianism. You can call it communism or fascism, but works out the same: government power over individual rights.