The return of fascism? Why this is the wrong question to ask

Umberto Eco: Ur-Fascism

Hello, mate! Good to see recommendations, thank you so much.
I'll leave some works here, just to make sure that someday you can learn at least something on Fascism.
Il Diario della Volontà (1927) | La Trasformazione dello Stato (1927) | La Trasformazione dello Stato II (1930) | Civiltà Fascista, Civiltà dello Spirito (1937) | La Dottrina del Fascismo (1932).
If it will be of any help, just get in touch, I can dedicate some of my time to give you lectures both on the Italian language and on Fascism.
Best regards!

The Antifa-scist sets aside his conventional morality to fight against this enemy -- he verbally and physically attacks the enemy, he destroys the enemy's property and interferes with the enemy's business. He would not normally do these things, but he justifies his actions because of the danger he perceives. — Garth

Who knew that scrubbing Swastikas off walls was the same as scrawling Swastikas on walls?

Right-wing logic is demented.

Yep.

Who knew that scrubbing Swastikas off walls was the same as scrawling Swastikas on walls? — Kenosha Kid

Insofar as someone is just doing nonviolent, legal acts like this, meant to clean up the community, he is not an Antifa-scist, but an Antifascist. The distinction is important for my argument.

Right-wing logic is demented. — Kenosha Kid

Good thing I'm not using right wing logic.

Insofar as someone is just doing nonviolent, legal acts like this, meant to clean up the community, he is not an Antifa-scist, but an Antifascist. The distinction is important for my argument. — Garth

Then your argument is bunkum, since those guys scrubbing Swastikas off walls..? They're called Antifa. Or sometimes community service workers.

Good thing I'm not using right wing logic. — Garth

Your logic is that of right-wing nutjob shock jocks.

You gotta quote this stuff man:

"But if focus is primarily placed on name calling Trump or other luminaries of the current anti-liberal backlash, the focus is shifted to “them” and conveniently deflects attention from the heart of the problem – our own societies and beliefs. We frame the challenge as coming from some sort of extremism that is extraneous and alien to us. This is to obsess over the upshot rather than the cause ... Whatever they are, these people confront us with the failings of our political system and the numerous contradictions in our mainstream societies that get so often ignored or airbrushed. They must be stopped – but only by addressing the deeper social causes of what makes their message appealing to so many others: growing distrust in politics, resentment at the fast pace of change, hardship in everyday life."

your argument is bunkum — Kenosha Kid

Your logic is that of right-wing nutjob shock jocks. — Kenosha Kid

Right-wing logic is demented. — Kenosha Kid

This is the exact verbal violence, meant to silence me, that I am pointing out is symptomatic of emerging fascism. You are exemplifying the exact difference between Antifa-scism and Antifascism that I am describing while at the same time denying that there is a difference not by making any kind of argument but by just blindly insisting on your own position. Wasn't it the Nazis who first perfected the art of "repeating the lie"? By your own actions in this thread you are literally making my point.

Any social movement can be destroyed from the inside by those who act against the interests of that movement. By refusing to reflect on yourself you are doing just that to your beloved antifascism. I wish to move America and every other country in the world toward an open, Democratic society. If you share that goal with me, great! But it is important that we think about our own actions and how they affect the trajectories of the social movements we participate in.

Nah. Better to get folk to read it in situ.

Yeah but you gotta dangle bait. Tease. Seduce.

This is the exact verbal violence, meant to silence me, that I am pointing out is symptomatic of emerging fascism. — Garth

A group of people, unafraid to fight back if attacked, go about trying to remove the violence of fascists and you're happy to misrepresent them. I validly criticise your logic and I'm "attempting to silence" you. When did fascists become so whiny? Your post on Antifa was nothing more than intolerant propaganda (which btw is not the purpose of this site). It was not a serious criticism of the group or its aims or means. If you want better than "verbal violence", do better. But in my experience there are no sane, well-adjusted fascists. They at best sound like you.

The modern Antifa movement in America is actually a Stalinist movement, which ironically implies that it is also fascist. — Garth

In terms of praxis, antifa's a highly decentralised popular front, Stalin's politics was a centralised united front. In terms of ideology; the popular front aspect of antifa makes it a hodgepodge of liberal social democracts, anarchists, communists and others; doctrinally mixed; the united front politics of Stalinism was notorious for its commitment to doctrinal purity (whatever the doctrine was at the time).

For a sane characterisation of fascism, as distinct from authoritarianism, see here.

it a hodgepodge of liberal social democracts, anarchists, communists and others; doctrinally mixed; the united front politics of Stalinism was notorious for its commitment to doctrinal purity (whatever the doctrine was at the time). — fdrake

While there may be social democrats in antifa, the ideology of the group is not liberal in the least. A liberal who wants to join the antifa movement in america and maintain their liberalism honestly has no idea what's going on. Look at some of the users on this forum who are actually antifa/black bloc members and ask yourself whether you are really the same.

While there may be social democrats in antifa, the ideology of the group is not liberal in the least. A liberal who wants to join the antifa movement in america and maintain their liberalism honestly has no idea what's going on. — BitconnectCarlos

I think they can and do. There just aren't enough committed anarchists and communists to make up everyone who acts with the intention of disrupting fascism.

I suspect you're using liberal in the "classic liberal" sense and not the sense I meant it; by a liberal social democrat I intended a reformist believer in the institutions of liberal democracy. Someone who broadly approves of the way things are set up fundamentally, but criticises/protests flaws when they see them. Those people who will act against resurgent nationalism, political oppression and systemic issues without wanting to overthrow states (anarchism) or the world order of capitalism (communism) [or both].

the Italian Fascism never knew any kind of racialist thought — Bertoldo

Italy didn't have the kind of internal racial tension that Germany had, but it does not follow that Italian fascism was not racist. They had extremely racist views about their neighbours.

This is the exact verbal violence, meant to silence me, that I am pointing out is symptomatic of emerging fascism. — Garth

Do you know anything about neo-fascism in Germany?

I suspect you're using liberal in the "classic liberal" sense and not the sense I meant it; by a liberal social democrat I intended a reformist believer in the institutions of liberal democracy. Someone who broadly approves of the way things are set up fundamentally, but criticises/protests flaws when they see them. Those people who will act against resurgent nationalism, political oppression and systemic issues without wanting to overthrow states (anarchism) or the world order of capitalism (communism) [or both]. — fdrake

Yeah, this was the sense of liberalism that I was using. I wasn't talking about classical liberalism. I don't believe that a liberal social democrat would fit in in the modern antifascist movement in the US, or the black bloc elsewhere. Antifa fundamentally seeks to stifle certain views, and I get it - in Europe they do this but in America it's against the principles our country was founded on and moreover it sets a dangerous precedent.

An important part of a liberal arts education is genuinely exploring views which we don't like. Antifa is not fundamentally a movement about discourse and the free exchange of ideas; it is about stifling any potentially dangerous idea before it is allowed to spread. It is a fundamentally illiberal movement.

Antifa fundamentally seeks to stifle certain views, and I get it - in Europe they do this but in America it's against the principles our country was founded on and moreover it sets a dangerous precedent. — BitconnectCarlos

Antifa seek to stifle neo-Nazi and white supremacist views. I suppose to an extent the US is founded on the latter, but that's not something to be proud of.

I was saying that what antifa is doing is contrary to our first amendment. In any case it sets an extremely dangerous precedent as more and more ideas could under some interpretations fall under the banner of "white supremacy" - zionism, european cultural pride, capitalism.

I was saying that what antifa is doing is contrary to our first amendment. — BitconnectCarlos

An amendment, by definition, is an alteration of the principles your country was founded upon. I do agree that religions and ideologies can be put under a single umbrella, but the first amendment protects your right to personal belief: it does not protect your perceived right to make the world a platform for those beliefs, and it certainly does not protect your perceived right to act to make a world that is violently hostile to others.

but the first amendment protects your right to personal belief: it does not protect your perceived right to make the world a platform for those beliefs, and it certainly does not protect your perceived right to act to make a world that is violently hostile to others.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech. Take your undemocratic trash elsewhere. Very convenient of you to avoid my second point, as well.

An amendment, by definition, is an alteration of the principles your country was founded upon — Kenosha Kid

:lol:

The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech. Take your undemocratic trash elsewhere. Very convenient of you to avoid my second point, as well. — BitconnectCarlos

Very convenient of you to avoid my first.

Freedom of speech does not mean a freedom to occupy whatever platform you choose. You do not have the freedom to take over university spaces, take over media platforms, or put up pro-Nazi posters on other people's or public property. Nor does it mean that others must be silent so that your speech must be heard: you do not have a right to be heard in a vacuum!

Your freedom to put up a poster that says "Kill the Jews" on, say, the window of the house you own (not renting or mortgaged) has been impinged on, but not by Antifa, rather by hate speech legislation. This speaks to my third point:

it certainly does not protect your perceived right to act to make a world that is violently hostile to others. — Kenosha Kid

I know that freedom of speech doesn't give the right to whatever platform you want, but you're still allowed to express your ideas verbally and in writing. The first amendment goes far beyond just the right to believe, which is very weak.

I avoided your first point because it was wrong but I didn't feel like getting into it because your second point was more more egregious.

I don't wanna pivot between conceptual and demographic characterisations. I'm making the demographic claim that social democratic liberals can be antifascist actors, and that the majority of contemporary antifascist actors are not smash the state anarchists or revolution now communists; simply because those doctrines are comparatively rarely held among contemporary progressives.

I do believe that such hardline positions are disproportionately represented relative to the general population in antifascist actors, though, and that antifascist organisers as a demographic category are (historically) even more likely to have more hard line positions.

I bet you'd like David Hahn's "Physical Resistance: a Hundred Years of Struggle", a history of antifascist movements.

An important part of a liberal arts education is genuinely exploring views which we don't like. — BitconnectCarlos

I think that's rather uncharitable. It strikes me that someone who commits to antifascist praxis does so from a principled place of understanding, study and experience. EG, the antifascist praxis of Jewish communist groups just before, during and after WW2. (Emphasised in the book I referenced). You don't have to agree with it to see it as a reasoned position.

Antifa is not fundamentally a movement about discourse and the free exchange of ideas; it is about stifling any potentially dangerous idea before it is allowed to spread. It is a fundamentally illiberal movement.

I'm sure from their perspective it is actually protecting the liberal rights you hold dear, cf paradox of tolerance. The only conditions under which a "free marketplace of ideas" could exist sustainably are ones with well enforced rules and laws of conduct. When those rules are rejected wholesale or too weak, the fragility of "the free marketplace of ideas" is laid bare; cf "money as speech". Whenever absolute decorum for speech is desired, enforcement of the principles that uphold it is required too. In that context, antifascist action is a democratic check-and-balance.

I know that freedom of speech doesn't give the right to whatever platform you want, but you're still allowed to express your ideas verbally and in writing. — BitconnectCarlos

Good, so you understand that you are not protected in defacing property you don't own, or to assemble free from counter-protestors. And presumably you're not going to suggest that fascists should be free to engage in violent acts but Antifa not free to defend themselves. What threat do you actually perceive from Antifa then? It can't be their anti-fascist position which, by your own argument, must be as protected as anti-black sentiment.

Anyway, it's a non-starter to use the first amendment as an argument against Antifa since they're a direct action group, not a reformist group. The first amendment protects citizens from laws made by the government, and Antifa do not seek to reform those laws.

I avoided your first point because it was wrong — BitconnectCarlos

Really? Let's take your right as an 18+ year old American to vote. Your argument is that this amendment, passed in the early 1970s, was one of the founding principles of your country? Or that every amendment since the Bill or Rights is an attack on the founding principles of your country?

I didn't feel like getting into it — BitconnectCarlos

And, believe it or not, I didn't feel like getting into a point that wasn't relevant to my argument. It's rather hypocritical to think I was obliged to respond to everything you have to say, yet you are not.

Meat & potatoes of our discussion is at the bottom.

I'm making the demographic claim that social democratic liberals can be antifascist actors — fdrake

Ok.

and that the majority of contemporary antifascist actors are not smash the state anarchists or revolution now communists; — fdrake

If by "antifascist actors" you mean actual members of antifa or the ones that dress in black and go to protests I'd like to dig a little deeper into this. I'd love to have these statistics.

and that antifascist organisers as a demographic category are (historically) even more likely to have more hard line positions. — fdrake

Absolutely.

I bet you'd like David Hahn's "Physical Resistance: a Hundred Years of Struggle", a history of antifascist movements. — fdrake

Interesting. I've been using Mark Bray's book on antifascism for my main source. Bray himself is very sympathetic to the movement and a leftist himself. I'll look into your source when I get the time.

It strikes me that someone who commits to antifascist praxis does so from a principled place of understanding, study and experience. — fdrake

Wouldn't you say that depends on the person though? We have some antifascists on this site who have made some very violent, gruesome statements towards people like Biden and others. I think it's disingenuous to group in every modern antifascist with, say, a Jewish anti-Nazi fighter around the time of WWII. Even as a Jew not every anti-Nazi fighter was good; there was a famous plot that was foiled when a group of Jewish partisans after WWII sought to poison the German water supply.

I'm sure from their perspective it is actually protecting the liberal rights you hold dear, cf paradox of tolerance. The only conditions under which a "free marketplace of ideas" could exist sustainably are ones with well enforced rules and laws of conduct. When those rules are rejected wholesale or too weak, the fragility of "the free marketplace of ideas" is laid bare; cf "money as speech". Whenever absolute decorum for speech is desired, enforcement of the principles that uphold it is required too. In that context, antifascist action is a democratic check-and-balance. — fdrake

I get what you're saying and you make a good conceptual point here. I don't disagree with what you write here.

A major idea of antifa is "punch a Nazi." For me it's very emotionally satisfying to see a Nazi get punched, but ultimately it's not an effective way to deal with Nazism or racism in a non-emergency environment. I hate to say it, but the antifascism movement, much like the neoconservatives of the Bush years, have a habit of viewing the current era as Germany, 1933 and that it is incumbent on us now to act immediately and decisively (with the neocons it was Saddam in Iraq, today it is the far right in America.) If you believe that America today is basically Germany, 1933 I don't know what to tell you. In war there is no talk, only violence.

It really should be an absolute last resort to start punching Nazis or white supremacists. It's much, much better to try to educate them... not even that but befriending them can make a huge difference. A black guy named Darryl Davis managed to befriend over 200 KKK members and as a result got them to turn away from their beliefs. If someone believes black people are vicious, stupid animals how is them getting punched by a black person going to change that??

Secondly, I believe racism is inherently undemocratic. It makes sense to me that antifascists would want to ban racism/white supremacy just like they'd want to ban fascism. The problem is with the enforcement - what constitutes racism/white supremacy? On today's college campuses they make the argument that Zionism, European cultural pride and capitalism are all manifestations of white supremacy. Do we ban advocacy of those too? Today's white supremacists are much more crafty - they're much more likely to "advocate for white people" or "support a white homeland" than saying that they think blacks or minorities are inferior. I'm okay with informing people's bosses that their workers are doing racist activities, but punching them is ineffectual at best and banning X sort of speech sets a dangerous precedent. How exactly do you define it?

Good, so you understand that you are not protected in defacing property you don't own, or to assemble free from counter-protestors. And presumably you're not going to suggest that fascists should be free to engage in violent acts but Antifa not free to defend themselves. — Kenosha Kid

:100:

What threat do you actually perceive from Antifa then? It can't be their anti-fascist position which, by your own argument, must be as protected as anti-black sentiment. — Kenosha Kid

Because they commit violence on college campuses and disrupt college speakers such as Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson. Those aren't fascists.

Anyway, it's a non-starter to use the first amendment as an argument against Antifa since they're a direct action group, not a reformist group. The first amendment protects citizens from laws made by the government, and Antifa do not seek to reform those laws. — Kenosha Kid

Antifa is using violence and intimidation to shut down the rights guaranteed to us.

Really? Let's take your right as an 18+ year old American to vote. Your argument is that this amendment, passed in the early 1970s, was one of the founding principles of your country? Or that every amendment since the Bill or Rights is an attack on the founding principles of your country? — Kenosha Kid

Neither. An amendment can be added and it's not an attack on the founding principles. Obviously something being passed in the 1970s wouldn't be a founding principle....

And, believe it or not, I didn't feel like getting into a point that wasn't relevant to my argument. It's rather hypocritical to think I was obliged to respond to everything you have to say, yet you are not. — Kenosha Kid

"What constitutes fascism" is an extremely relevant question. If you believe it's good to punch a Nazi or a racist and violent suppress that type of speech, what about Zionism or capitalism? Can we punch capitalists if capitalism is essentially white supremacy? This is a really important question.

If by "antifascist actors" you mean actual members of antifa or the ones that dress in black and go to protests I'd like to dig a little deeper into this. I'd love to have these statistics. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't have 'em. To my mind we're both speculating on the demographics:

don't believe that a liberal social democrat would fit in in the modern antifascist movement in the US, or the black bloc elsewhere — BitconnectCarlos

I'd be happy to revise my opinion on the demography of ideas in antifacist actors given present data about it! The historical demography seems mixed; considering the record seems to be mostly concern institutions that approved of antifacist action - they were communist, socialist, anarchist and left allies. Or were institutions made by marginalised communities in response to the threat of violence. The two groups were allied and intersected. AFAIK they also intersected with the membership of major political institutions in the UK (unions and the Labour party).

It seems to take a perceived stage of emergency, as you say, to generate common approval of antifascist action among liberals.

Wouldn't you say that depends on the person though? We have some antifascists on this site who have made some very violent, gruesome statements towards people like Biden and others. I think it's disingenuous to group in every modern antifascist with, say, a Jewish anti-Nazi fighter around the time of WWII. Even as a Jew not every anti-Nazi fighter was good; there was a famous plot that was foiled when a group of Jewish partisans after WWII sought to poison the German water supply. — BitconnectCarlos

A person's reasons depend on the person. I don't think "a persons reasons depend on the person" is an allowed move in the game of ideological/demographic generalisation we've engaged in so far. It destroys all generalisation.

A major idea of antifa is "punch a Nazi." For me it's very emotionally satisfying to see a Nazi get punched, but ultimately it's not an effective way to deal with Nazism or racism in a non-emergency environment. I hate to say it, but the antifascism movement, much like the neoconservatives of the Bush years, have a habit of viewing the current era as Germany, 1933 and that it is incumbent on us now to act immediately and decisively (with the neocons it was Saddam in Iraq, today it is the far right in America.) If you believe that America today is basically Germany, 1933 I don't know what to tell you. In war there is no talk, only violence. — BitconnectCarlos

I think there are decent grounds for comparison. A highly nationalist and xenophobic political faction has widespread appeal, it's lead by a demagogue who by all rights has engaged in violent suppression of peaceful protest (see the Lafeyette Square Incident), has publicly signalled support for a white supremacist militia and so on. I would like to add demonising antifascist actors to that list, as it's easily seen as a preparatory move to "at first coming for the socialists" as the poem goes, charging protestors with sedition tolls the bells for the same group.

I don't mean to convince you that the emergency is as great as it was back in WW2, I mean to convince you that it's reasonable to conclude that the current state of things is a growing state of emergency. And of such emergencies, we seem to agree that "prevention is better than cure" Antifascist action is a preventative measure in the same way that education is on a societal level.

Don't of course take that as a blank "fight by any means necessary" cheque, things can indeed get worse than white supremacist militiamen stabbing 4 counter protestors in the street because they're contesting an attempt to overturn an election... But I can see why people of conscience and reason could conclude that now is not the time for patience only.

I'm with you 100% that widespread antifascist education would be a good thing for society, though. It just seems that there's no way to educate the knives out of those protesters' bodies.