Not really there are anti antifa centrists and leftists that are simply against extremist movements. At least where i live antifa is pretty militant so people basically group it with the faschists which is pretty ironic if you think about it. A long time ago i was also anti antifa but seeing the lenghts that "conservatives" go to fuck up everything we love im also swinging to a more violent leftism.
You would think so, but the people on my region that call themselfs "antifa" are fasist themselves. No tolerant on who you are or how you look if you are a "white straight male".
So yea, fuck the antifa organization. Im all anti facism starting with them.
Where I came from it's the right wings, who wants you believe antifa is a criminal organisation which is far more extremist and radical than themselves.
This is just propaganda. Sure leftists use the term "antifa" more than the average not extremist people but this has nothing to do with the fact, that everyone who is against fascism is an antifa.
tl;dr: Sorting the "antifa" wording to the "baddies" is rightwing propaganda.
According to Wikipedia (I know, but it is a protected article), antifa is a loose organization of autonomous groups that use both non-violent and violent means. Based on that last part alone, I would say that is perfectly reasonable to NOT identify as antifa even if one generally agrees with their agenda.
As for vilifying the opposition, that does seem like just the thing the right wing would do to avoid taking responsibility for their own stupidity.
You just say fuck fascists, that is antifa, then you say fuck antifa that means fuck yourself? It is very simple to understand. If you are against fascism you are already antifa. Then stop. No need to fuck any more. You are the fascist and then fuck fascism because anti fascism is bad to your fascism but you hate fascism? Good luck with the self fucking puzzle
The difference between the extreme wings is miniscule. Methods, Objectives and Goals are the same, just the arguments differ slightly.
In Germany half of the voters of the Ultra-Left Party "Linkspartei" went within one election to the Ultra-Right Party "Alternative für Deutschland". Even starnger, the AfD is financed by Putin who wants to recreate Stalinism, which is Ultra-Leftist, while the AfD wants to recreate a Führer-Cult which is Ultra-Right. And still both cooperate perfectly.
But don't think the US is better. While Linkspartei and AfD together are 15% in the US the equally Extremist-Trumpists are close to 50%.
People need to understand that the Extremists on the wings are closer to each other than to the middle. While the middle tries to better things in small steps the Extremists want to burn the house down with everyone inside and then see who survives.
Sorry, but this is just horseshoe-theory Enlightened Centrist nonsense.
Methods? No. The far-right relies on terror, fear, and explicit power structures such as a police state to maintain power. Leftists oppose such structures, even on the ultra-left.
Objectives? Absolutely not. Right-wingers seek to maintain Capitalism, the far-right seeks to implement fascism as a reactionary protection of Capitalist hierarchy, complete with racial and gender hierarchy. The extreme left, ie Anarchists and Communists, seek a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society based on horizontal power structures. Completely different.
Goals? Same as objectives.
Horseshoe theory is absolute nonsense, and is used to protect the status quo even if the status quo must be radically changed.
Stalin and Pol Pot and Saddam used mostly the same methods as Hitler and as Pinochet and just like the Taliban.
They wanted total power to reform the society to their day dreams. There is not much difference if you call your Economy Plan "Five Year Plan" or "Maximale Kriegswirtschaft". In the end everyone gets under the foot of the Big Brother, the Grosser Führer, вождь woschd (Yes, Stalin let himself call Führer as did several other Extremist leaders).
We need to learn that the Extremists are much further away from the middle than the parties of the middle to each other. But also the Extremists are much closer to themselves.
Even Trump and Putin show a lot of those methods and while Trump dreams of US Fascism and Putin dreams of Reviving Stalinism their Objectives are just the same: Total power for themselfes.
Oh, I hear you already screaming "But they weren't Socialists/Fascists" - well, they were part of the Socialist International, they called themselves Socialists and people travelled there to see Socialism. "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."
The Way less extreme people defend themselves from the more extreme people is just "But they weren't true right/left wing. They were something else!" - Boy, I am so tired of it. If 99% if your ventures into Extremism always end the same then I see a pattern that the results will ALWAYS be the same.
And seeing how easily East Germans nowadays change from Ultra-Left to Ultra-Right and visa versa I say: Proof by Observation in the Wild.
I am not even talking about the US where 90% of the people simply don't even understand what left, right, middle, liberal and Extremism means. When giving a kid free health care is socialism and people think free voting is disrespectable liberalism.
This is even more bullshit, lmao. The only leftist you listed was Stalin, every single one of the others is a far-right fascist that oversaw a Capitalist economy. That includes Putin, who is reactionary. Even then, many call Stalin red-fash, and they aren't entirely wrong either.
Additionally, if you think reactionary changes after states fall is because the far left and far right are similar, then again, you don't understand historical trends or movements. These are reactionary movements to a large-scale failure.
Again, this is nothing but horse-shoe theory nonsense, it's equivalent to astrology in validity but far more dangerous politically.
Here's a quick example: which is better, an extreme antiracist, or an extreme racist? In your eyes, both are equally bad. Radicalism is not bad alone, neither is extremism. Each view must be judged on a case by case basis.
Whenever a Left-Extremist does something stupid his buddies just claim "Well, he wasn't Left anyway. Lets just pretend he was a Nazi instead, haha."
Brilliant. But easy to see through.
The Right-Extremist takes peoples property and life because they are the wrong race.
The Left-Extremists takes peples property without reason and life because we wasn't left enough.
The bit about the left taking peoples property for no reason and fighting people for not being left of them screams "strawman with no actual points against leftism" to me. You've got this whole "Enlightened Centrist" thing going on that just proves you don't actually want to analyze things and instead just fence-sit because the status quo benefits you.
Learn to quote. I wrote "Extremists". You claim I wrote "Leftists". You need to learn that the Extreme Wings are much further away from the middle than the left and right middle to each other.
Also, I see you are doing the 101 of populism:
make up an enemy
secondly, lying pays off
become more and more radical
Oh, and by the way, I am living in Germany. You fucking have you idea what you are talking about if you are talking about left and right politics, extremists and middle. Honestly, you sound like someone with an extreme case of borderline syndrome who only know "THEM" vs "US", only knows Extreme Counterpositions.
But that is not how the world works. Even our local conservative parties are much more leftist than eg the US Democrats and that is a good thing. I vote mostly Green and Social Democrats. But I HATE the Extremists, the Maoists, Stalinists, the Alternative Truthers, the national party, the skin heads (there are left and right skinheads in Germany so... pick your poison). And I see the Extremists changing without a second thought from Left Extremism to Right Extremism. Hell, I have even seen Left Extremists convert to Islam Extremism so they have Gods blessing in hating others. You can not make up how stupid Extremists are.
"Socialism does not mean the equal distribution of wealth between the wealthy and the poor, this would be too inflexible. Rather, socialism is a means of increasing productivity." - Saddam Hussein, Leader of the Arab socialist Movement: in: ath-thawra
Best Definition of "Fascism" I have ever heared. From an Extremist Socialist trying to redefine Socialism.
You may argue "how Extremist" Fa, Anti-Fa and Anti-Anti-Fa are. But you can not argue that they are all Extremists.
Now answer me with your usual emotional one-liners. Add some foot stomping. I do not expect anything more from you.
The liberal Reichsbanner Movement is going to celebrate 100 years of Resistance to Extremism. They do not differentiate between left and right Extremism. Never did. And their members number in the Millions. That is how you really fight Extremism.
Extremism can be correct. The only correct response to racism is antiracism, which is an extremist stance. It's fitting that a liberal party would fight leftist movement.
Actually Mao claimed his great leap forward was "Anti-Racism" (and also Anti-Classism and whatever) because he forcefully removed all differences by murdering pretty much any one standing out. Pol Pot never claimed that but technically speaking he was doing the same: Forcefully removing everything making people different. Yes, there is "Extremist Anti-Racism".
Being different is as much a basic right as being treated equally.
An interesting excursus: The Woke movement labelled it "racist" when Non-Rasta-People wore Rasta curls. I on the other hand call it racist to deny people the right to freely chose or reject traditions based on their origin. Because one side is Extremist and the other is liberal. Now tell me where the truth lies.
There is a Bavarian Pro-Verb: Cats enjoy mice, but not me. Again, tell me where the truth lies.
But they also have been the loudest about rearming the German Bundeswehr in face of Russian Aggression since 2008. I cite their defence speaker from 2010: "Peace is worth fighting for".
Isn't this the asian guy who doesn't understand that white supremacists only like white people and claimed to be suing the CEO of Antifa for damages that never actually happened?
I'm guessing that means this is also the dude who claimed people threw cement at him, when it was a milk shake.
Then they claimed the milkshake had cement in it, so people pointed out things like sugar would keep cement from hardening.
Then the cops said they had no reason to assume it was concrete, and no one suggested it was, despite them and the guy being the ones who said it was concrete.
Eyup, that's the guy. It was also around the time others on the right claimed that people were pouring gasoline into bags in order to make "Makeshift Molotv Cocktails"
When
the whole point of a Molotov Cocktail is that it's a makeshift weapon that the proletariat will always have access to as it's just alcohol and fire
B) A plastic bag wouldn't make for a good molotov cocktail as it would just fucking disintegrate and couldn't be thrown that far of a distance, if any at all
Soros, Bill Gates and the Bilderbergs, I guess? Probably also that Davos guy who Alex Jones et al TOTALLY aren't fixated on for antisemitic reasons either, nuh-uh!
In my opinion it would be a movement if facism was the status quo. Given most people are discussing Western nations, which while adopting facism at an alarming pace; are not yet facist. Antifa is not a movement nor an organization. Since not being facist is the status quo and antifa means that you're not going to support facism, in my opinion antifa is the current "establishment" and being facist is an effort to move the status quo. Aka a movement.
A movement can have members and leaders even without formal organizational hierarchy. It just won't look the same as something like a corporation, nonprofit, or government. The person who noticed that the Proud Boys were coming to town and rallied people to a counter-protest? Definitely a leader. The people who show up on a cold rainy Saturday instead of staying indoors with a warm cup of tea? Members. Just because membership and leadership is more amorphous doesn't mean it isn't there in some form.
The person who noticed that the Proud Boys were coming to town and rallied people to a counter-protest? Definitely a leader
Nahh you got that wrong. What usually happens is that a lot of people who are into politics (which left-extreme people often are) hear about this at the same time (through some press release, some proud boys twitter account who's rallyin their followers, etc.).
From that point the information spreads over friendsgroups, small discords, tweets, whatsapps, in person, slowly but steadily.
Any left-extreme person who hears this immediately thinks "I'm mad, I wanna show those guys that they're not welcome". Granted, some of us think about much more extreme things, but back to the point. The first reaction from that thought is often "is there a counter protest?". People are then doing the same thing but the other way around, as now everyone is trying to find some tweet, event, whatsapp message screenshot, whatever, of someone saying where the meeting point for an event would be. If none are found, someones gonna create something, which is usuqlly someone who's got a lot of connections with other left-extremists. Often there's multiple people creating the same counterprotest, which gets super messy at times, but somehow everyone manages to meet up in some general spot.
Worst case you just have a bunch of friends groups going to the meeting spot of wherever the initial event is happening.
That's "the antifa". A massive network of friends and friends of friends of friends who are all pretty aligned in their political views (which is "fuck Nazis") but who often don't know more then 5 other antifacists.
Often there’s multiple people creating the same counterprotest, which gets super messy at times, but somehow everyone manages to meet up in some general spot.
This is kind of my point, in a way. It was maybe simplistic to use one person. There is leadership, but there are many leaders, and they don't have a badge with "Antifa CEO". Though someone really needs to make stickers with "Antifa CEO". One of my former managers came from activist circles like antifa. She will always be my favorite manager because she is so great at making sure even shy people feel heard.
People are just nitpicking the meaning of the word Organization. Antifa is an organization in a very loose definition of the word. If you want to be more accurate, you'd call it a Network. Organizations (in the stricter sense) has a single leader and has a very tree-like structure with more power on top (like Corporations!), which Antifa obviously is not.
Though you're correct in that Antifa is a "movement".
I find this comment thread horribly ironic, and I hope I can show you why without starting an argument because this is genuinely kind of funny.
Fascism is when a state achieves (or attempts to achieve) totalitarianism through corporatization. All corporations are chartered and controlled through the state, and private industry becomes corporatized.
One of the ways they did this was through legitimizing specific channels of distribution, and labeling all who take a more independent route as illegitimate. Farmers, for example, were coerced into selling their products to state distributors, and pressured out of independent channels. Likewise, farmers who weren't part of the state organization were often treated with suspicion and derision.
Basically, if you were a _____ and did _____ things, but were not part of the _____ organization, then you weren't a real ______ no matter how good you are at _____.
Anyway, antifa is a real thing that exists, and that's the thing people here are talking about. They're a group that has identifiable goals, and they work together under the label. It's really funny to me that so many here are appealing to "they're not even a real org" in the face of dissent, because that's one of the most fascist mind sets that exist commonplace today.
There is a huge overlap between people who would participate in Antifa and Anarchists, so you can imagine the problems getting a structured organization setup and keeping on task and purpose.
I'm sure that's part of it. Antifa is definitely not well structured, and anarchists could probably be opposed to any official organization.
Let me put it this way, the post talks about a journalist who investigates antifa, which the op of this comment chain mocked because they're not an organization. But, this is an argument of semantics, and the post didn't use that word to begin with. Regardless of what you call antifa, he's trying to investigate and see what they're about.
It's a very dishonest way to deride people. If you don't mind me asking, if you don't think the word organization is appropriate, what's better? I mean I just say group, can't really be wrong going that general but it also doesn't say much. Like, when you said "people who participate in Antifa...", what type of thing are those people participating in?
Organizations do not necessarily require structure, association is a synonym for a reason. Decentralized organizations and associations are a thing. Decentralized workers solidarity movements and co-op/community strengthening initiatives can be/are "organizing" even if no one is in charge. You don't need to be a member of a union or an official neighborhood association to be part of an organization, there just needs to be general or vague common intention among a group and something of a shared identity. You might not get as much done a fast when not structurally organized, but you also don't not exist if your not a card carrying member. I don't understand the desire to divorce Antifa from being an organization or even existing. It's like saying that the Deadheads aren't a real thing because no one was directing the vast majority of fans who packed up and followed the band across the country.
I haven't argued anything before that post, but this conversation about the semantics of the word organization means is interesting to me. To answer your question, I'd say Yes? Deadheads were a group of people associating with each other under common interest and intent. They didn't particularly have leaders or any hierarchical structure, but they gathered in locations of common interest (concert venues and the surrounding local) based solely on individual discussion and desire, participated in the event alongside and with the group, and almost everyone participating identified as a deadhead. I really don't understand the problem with them falling under the edge of the umbrella of the term organization.
They were an organization when viewed as an association or society: in this case a voluntary association of individuals for common ends. Deadheads were a distinct subculture in and of themselves, and I don't understand in what universe that wouldn't qualify. Keeping with the musician fandom, I'd say the same for the Juggalo's. Being on the outer edge of the Venn diagram is still part of the whole picture.
I seem to recall seeing a video or reading an article where they mention that the media turned antifa into a sort of separate word to warp its meaning. Instead of saying anti fascist, which has a clear meaning, they shortened it and changed the pronunciation 'an teefa' (something to do with which syllable you emphasise) so they could distort its meani g and demonise the word to make people think it was bad.
So now people dont realise antifa means anti fascist which is surely a good thing to be, and instead, they fear antifa as some kind of terrorist group, which is almost the opposite of what it is.
The funny thing is, as an outsider to this, living in the UK, our media doesn't ever use the term, and when i heard it, my instinct was to look up its meaning. It's interesting to me that i won't know if i would have fallen for it if the media were using it in the same way over here to lead my understanding of its definition
I think Antifa actually started in the UK even before the Nazi's. Eh actually not but they did fight against fascists in the UK as early as 1930.
The reason why we need antifa and why it's hated by the mainstream is because the establishment is notoriously bad at stopping fascism. There is a long history of it. So besides liberal antifa that uses legal means like suing the KKK out of existence, the autonomous antifa is actually needed for the continued working of our democracy.
Afaik, the first Antifa were a coalition of left wing groups in Italy fighting fascists in the 1920s. They didn’t necessarily use the term but they were the first active anti-fascists so that counts in my book 🤷
As a side note, they were left to fight both the fascists and the royalists alone, since the Italian Liberals refused to get involved until it was clear who would win and then joined the fascists.
I think that is the lesson, liberals do not effectively fight against fascism because they are too desiring of orderly and calm and polite politics and too much powered by economic interests (bourgeois). So we actually rely on antifa as a social force. Neither the state nor the liberals will fight against it. At least that is my limited understanding of it, since this is never discussed about in mainstream media.
liberals do not effectively fight against fascism because they are too desiring of orderly and calm and polite politics and too much powered by economic interests
Absolutely 100% correct.
So we actually rely on antifa as a social force.
We need to, yes.
Neither the state nor the liberals will fight against it.
Right you are again!
At least that is my limited understanding of it, since this is never discussed about in mainstream media.
Seems to me you understand it perfectly but yeah, the mainstream media is for-profit and owned by billionaires who are often friends with or at least have common interests with the fascists, so they have very logical, if despicable, reasons to be hands-off about it.
Antifa (Antifaschistische Aktion) under that name started in 1932 as action by the KPD to organise widest possible front against the nazis, in the face of SPD as a party being very reluctant to act against nazis. Many SPD members did joined, but as we know, their own party in reichstag made that futile.
Of course antifascist resistance is about as old as fascism or even older considering protofascists activity even before Mussolini coined the term, but the name itself is from 1932 KPD.
They have a constant and desperate effort to invent words they can’t define that categorize their blind rage since they’re not allowed to say one that starts with N. “Woke” is the newest one.
Yeah that's bullshit. There isn't some secret cabal that's in charge of US journalism anymore than there is in the UK. What really happens is that because the old news-media business models have been utterly destroyed by the Internet, there's a giant and never-ending competition for audience and everyone knows that sensationalism sells.
You have a similar problem in the UK but it's not as pronounced because the BBC is government funded and even though it's far from perfect, it does set a kind of baseline. Your other big news organizations are just as bad as in the US though. Your tabloids are actually a lot worse than ours, which is saying something.
And you know how.his followers hang on his every word. I mean, he literally incited a riot/assault on capitol.
I see your point, but i dont see how the old news being taken over by internet news changes who is in control of the narrative. I also dont think i was referring to any kind of "secret cabal."
I was only saying that i heard or read somewhere that antifa was demonised in the media, and thats why so many think they are terrorists. If you ask most americans what antifa means, they don't know. They only know the abbreviation 'antifa' and that they are scared of it.
Many issues with this headline, but one of them is the word journalist, which implies some form of neutrality. The headline should either be a L out a journalist that writes about antifa, or a pro-facism activist. I suspect from the context (Fox) that it’s the latter.
I believe that's Andy Ngo, so yes, absolutely a pro-fascist activist. He was caught on camera actively coordinating with Patriot Prayer, a far-right extremist group.
The vast majority of journalists work for some sort of publication or news agency, in which they're beholden to the company owners' agenda and have to report to an editorial board, which decides what can and can not be published in accordance with their views.
You're thinking of independent journalists, of which there are very few.
Ok, the fact that you honestly believe this is how legitimate newsrooms work is both deeply disheartening and an indication of how little the average person knows about the news business.
Editors decide what gets published, not the editorial board which is an entirely different and unrelated body that traditionally has zero contact with the content side of things. In the business we say that there is a "firewall" between the editorial board and actual news content. The NYT or WaPo would have mass resignations of their reporters if either of their editorial boards tried to influence content.
Ownership is a bit different and obviously --as we know from the Murdoch empire-- can influence content, but in traditional operations they've always been very hands-off. It's a fact, for example, that Jeff Bezos doesn't care what the WaPo publishes and has no interest in it beyond as a business concern.
Editors do have control over content, but overwhelmingly they are concerned with doing a good job and furthering their careers and professional reputations. You're completely misunderstanding the incentive structure in mainstream news media. Outside of the extremist advocacy journalism ecosystems --mostly but not only on the far right-- no one has any incentive to push an agenda and risk ruining their career by getting something important wrong.
Ah yes, it's only the evil right wing news outlets that have issues with transparency and corruption, but don't worry, all the left wing ones are totally honest.
And all billionaires are evil exploiters... unless they own liberal newspapers, then they're totally ethical and there is no grounds for concern.
Everybody has some sort of bias towards something. It’s ultimately just an opinion.
Journalistic integrity isn’t about being non-biased, it’s about being upfront about bias and ideally the journalist actively trying to counter their own bias within their work.
Antifa opinion: fascism is bad and must be opposed at every opportunity.
Fascist opinion: extreme Nationalism, the state and the populace must be as one living organism, the enemy must be powerful enough to unite against and weak enough to feel superior, extreme statist Capitalism must take place, all rights and freedoms must be curbed in the name of an almighty state, and the state is absolute.
Well you are at least right about fascists thinking they are always right. Which explains why you would think your first statement is right even though it couldn't be more wrong if you tried lol.
"Fascism is not a form of state power "standing above both classes – the proletariat and the bourgeoisie," as Otto Bauer, for instance, has asserted. It is not "the revolt of the petty bourgeoisie which has captured the machinery of the state," as the British Socialist Brailsford declares. No, fascism is not a power standing above class, nor government of the petty bourgeoisie or the lumpen-proletariat over finance capital. Fascism is the power of finance capital itself. It is the organization of terrorist vengeance against the working class and the revolutionary section of the peasantry and intelligentsia. In foreign policy, fascism is jingoism in its most brutal form, fomenting bestial hatred of other nations.... The development of fascism, and the fascist dictatorship itself, assume different forms in different countries, according to historical, social and economic conditions and to the national peculiarities, and the international position of the given country."
Stop it! Do you want another very long word? Cause that's how you get very long words. How do you think got the word, antidisestablishmentteroistism?! I already had to learn that word, I don't want to learn a longer one.
Someone mentioned antifa at work the other day, and I said, "Antifa? I'm in. Shitting on fascists has been an American pass time for a century or better."
The looks of shock and horror on my coworkers faces was quite the sight to behold.
Well, I can tell you, in Europe Extremist Voters switch without thinking twice between far left and far right.
Methods, Objectives and Goals are the same, just the arguments differ slightly.
Both hate the West, especially the US and Israel, both hate the way we live but without offering a better way. Both want to burn down the house just to see who survives. Only the Arguments differ, the left hate the people running their own society, the right hate the people running other society.
And always remember, Hitler was a National-SOCIALIST.
The "Socialist" in the NSDAP is only a honeypot so they could claim ground and voters who leaned socialist without much thought ("I'm a mill worker like my father before me, we have always voted socialist. Buuut that National-Thing sounds nice"). Same with the "A" which stands for "Arbeiter" (Workers).
There's the same with the conservative party (CDU = Christdemokratische Union, Christ-Democratic Union) today. Lots of old people say "I'm a christian and that party has a C for 'Christianity' in its name." In fact, their regional party in Bavaria, the CSU is more conservative. And you have three guesses what their "S" is for.
I mean that would make sense if Antifa had anything to do with fascism. It's just one of many movements wearing labels that intentionally misrepresent it's members.
It's like being anti-Patriot act and then others claiming that you're against patriotism.
You wouldn’t know a fascist if it grabbed you by the pussy.
And that’s like saying “If Black Lives Matter were actually black” or something. Antifa isn’t a group, person, or organization…it’s an idea. Much like BLM or Occupy.
The real problem is that the idea ends up losing focus as it gains support, and then it gets spread out too far, and then it dies. Happens nearly every time.
You wouldn’t know a fascist if it grabbed you by the pussy.
You're correct. I wouldn't. Because I don't have one.
Antifa isn’t a group, person, or organization…it’s an idea.
Tell that to it's supporters.
Much like BLM or Occupy.
Wrong again.
The real problem is that the idea ends up losing focus as it gains support, and then it gets spread out too far, and then it dies. Happens nearly every time.
BLM and Occipy aren't organizations. There is a BLM organization. But that's like if I created an organization called Feminism. That wouldn't make Feminism an organization. That just means there's an organization based on the movement.
Yes, sure, it can, but I think it’s more of just a sign of the times. I think infiltrating and co-opting an ideology, intentionally, is pretty difficult…unless the infiltrator already has a large platform, they will likely be drowned out. Otherwise I think sabotage is a better (as in more effective) approach to slowing a movement (such as inciting riots).
For one, communication is rampant and anybody can get a platform. This is great for starting and growing a movement, but this makes it really difficult to maintain a movement. A large number of well-meaning people with a pre-existing platform (namely influencers and YouTube personalities these days) that each interpret and redistribute the message just sligntly different than original. From there it spirals into a huge, multi-pronged game of telephone.
For two, a lot of the leftist movements inspire democrats to join into the crowd. The democrat party has become the de facto big tent party. At this point it’s embodying the ideals of like 80% of the political compass. Naturally, this attracts a diverse range of idealogies, who want to interpret and spread the movement slightly differently.
Lastly…it’s fucking tough to lead a movement man. I couldn’t imagine what it takes to essentially corral millions of people around an idea.
The first and third points are probably why we don’t see a lot of celebrity activists these days to the level of MLK or Malcom X. The increased scale and speed must make it incredibly difficult to get and maintain control.
I don't support fascisms, but I also don't support violence and property damage to get the message across.
I will never take a "movement" seriously that uses vandalism to get a message across.
One is an attempt to overthrow democracy and install a fascist theocratic dictatorship.
The other is protesting directly against that. While you may not agree with their methods, which is frankly childish and placing the responsibility for our social climate in the laps of the oppressed, you cannot in good faith smile smugly and say "same".
In that case, I suppose you also oppose the Civil Rights Movement, considering it too was often violent and had a significant amount of property damage.
But their methods were a result of their material conditions, and resulted in the liberation of Black Americans from segregation. Do you not equally take fault with the white moderates who opposed ending segregation and used disapproval of their methods as rhetoric?
Unfortunately, when protests get extreme, there is inevitably some level of violence, whether that be to people or property. It is the responsibility of the state to prevent it from getting this bad. People don't just think "hmm, today I will do some violence," violence erupts as a consequence.
Not what I said. If protests last long enough and are founded on unsustainable material conditions, the State has failed and protests will become Riots. "Riots are the voice of the unheard," after all.
If you think peacefully asking people to stop being pieces of shit works, then you learned a completely whitewashed version of the Civil Rights Movement. MLK led marches and tried to maintain peace, but alongside the militant Black Panthers there was genuine revolutionary pressure that forced the state to act.
I shank them with a rusty scrap of metal to the neck
One of these is obviously worse. Yes, both are violence. Yet to simply try and paint them as such would show you're either not arguing in good faith, or, as respectfully as possible, your brain hasn't fully developed.
But let's mix it up. I slap someone. But I, a man that's 6'2" and does physical labor, slapped an infant for crying. Seems a little worse than it did at first, huh?
I am being attacked by a random person who is trying to murder me, and in a panic, I grab something, and attack him with it. Turns out it was a rusty piece of metal. Now we have hints of self defense.
Once again, still violence, but both were to different degrees, and the context changed both of them.
We live under a hostile occupation by security forces employed by the wealthy class, there are deaths everyday due to the systems maintained by wealth and greed.
I didn't say the US was fascist, I'm saying our world is controlled by hoards of wealth and nearly all state actions are to protect that wealth and the people that hold it at the cost of the well-being of the proletariat.
Do you think people normally resort to mass murder in protest of, say, slightly decreased toilet paper thickness? If there's an issue that is so pressing that there's actually mass murder, then the State is an utter failure for not addressing said issue before it got to that point, and is almost certainly a fascist system.
yes, let's hope the protestors are well adjusted and their measures are proportional. After all ideologies have never caused anyone to commit a tragedy.
People are driven by their material conditions far more than ideas. Mass protests happen for a reason, there are genuine grievances that are not being addressed. It is the responsibility of the state to properly address protests, and if they fail, they become riots.
No, violence is not good. Nobody is saying it is. However, people are correctly placing the responsibility of the origin of said violence on the oppressor, not the oppressed lashing out.
That's quite the slippery slope fallacy. I replied to your comment of:
I don’t support fascisms, but I also don’t support violence and property damage to get the message across. I will never take a “movement” seriously that uses vandalism to get a message across.
Which at no point mentions mass murder. "Oh, you support people protesting? What about BLOWING UP THE PLANET IN PROTEST?! Is THAT okay then?"
The fact that you equate property damage with mass murder really says a lot about you.
