There's a difference between second degree and first degree crimes that's really important here. Did the crime have prior planning or not? If yes, we investigate the group behind the crime if there is one. — BitconnectCarlos

So if an Antifa member shot randomly into a crowd of fascists, Antifa are in the clear?

And therefore one member's personal decision to kill someone is precisely what makes it not his personal responsibility?

Far-right people really will say absolutely anything m

So if an Antifa member shot randomly into a crowd of fascists, Antifa are in the clear?

And therefore one member's personal decision to kill someone is precisely what makes it not his personal responsibility?

Far-right people really will say absolutely anything m

In America, there used to be a right to go to rallies and protests without outside interference from the government or violent mobs. Given that they routinely suppress this human right, I'm surprised Antifa didn't get worse.

In America, there used to be a right to go to rallies and protests without outside interference from the government — NOS4A2

You should know a little more about American history. Perhaps always the right, but slips aplenty 'twixt cup and lip.

So if an Antifa member shot randomly into a crowd of fascists, Antifa are in the clear?

And therefore one member's personal decision to kill someone is precisely what makes it not his personal responsibility?

Far-right people really will say absolutely anything m — Kenosha Kid

Any crime gets investigated, that's just how it is. Let the police do their work and draw their conclusions. I don't get why this is so complicated.

Look into the anti-mob police cases of the 1980s in New York - organizations can be held responsible for the behavior of their members.

The point I'm trying to make is that there's a historical continuity between the antifascist actors I'm referring to and the ones which are currently vilified. — fdrake

I judge groups as they are now. To me this would be like judging the modern American military like the one it was in WWII.

When that community organised with antifascist groups - after the police refused to do anything, mind -,they effectively made their own police force to stop hate crimes being committed against them which the police were indifferent to. And it worked. The British fascists stopped bullying that neighbourhood. — fdrake

If the police or authorities absolutely refuse to cooperate or help in any manner - then yes, it's on you. In America in 2020 we can absolutely count on our police to go after anti-semitic hate crimes. Vigilante groups are an absolute last resort and I'm sure you see how things can get out of hand very quickly when you have angry citizens enforcing justice. But yes, when the authorities are either complicit or unhelpful in, say, stopping hate crimes then this type of vigilante action becomes more plausible.

It's not for the person victimised by fear and intimidation, it's to make them afraid and to stop doing whatever they're doing. That was an attempt to control, through fear, someone who's committing hate crimes, or otherwise legitimising violence, the police either cannot or will not intervene in to prevent or stop. — fdrake

It can work, but it's not the ideal method. Maybe the anti-semitic thug just learns to prey on weaker communities. It's a last resort. I'm sure you and I must both agree that taking the law into your own hands is a last resort.

This is a strategic weakness of liberal democracy, as noted by Schmitt. Free speech absolutism provides absolutely no defence against bad faith and subversive actors from within the system, in fact all that is needed to be done to get people on the side of bad faith actors is for them to claim they are being silenced. So long as liberal democracy is willing to hold free speech to such high regard it risks facing the bad conclusion of the paradox of tolerance; erosion of the very norms that were protected. So long as people side with these bad faith actors, antifascist action will be required as a counterbalance to defend liberal norms. An unglamorous job, as everyone hates them for it. — fdrake

I'm glad you mention Schmitt here. In my view Schmitt is probably one of the most if not the most persuasive fascist thinker out there. He's an unabashed fascist, no question there. It would seem to me that if we're serious about nipping fascism in the bud then we should ban his works, full stop. If someone seriously engages Schmitt he'll likely feel the pull of fascism. Whenever you seriously engage a thinker they'll pull you into their world for a bit.

After Schmitt I'd also likely go after Nietzsche. Maybe not the entirety of Nietzsche, sure, but definitely certain parts lend themselves to fascist thought. Where exactly do we draw the line? That's a damn good question. But I guess the more important one would be who makes the decision.

We can start going after bands, too, like Rammstein and other heavy metal bands who clearly have fascist undertones and aesthetics. We'll really have quite the work cut out ahead of us. I never read Heideggar but he might be gone too. We'd have to revise the entire concept of a liberal arts education while we're at it.

Look into the anti-mob police cases of the 1980s in New York - organizations can be held responsible for the behavior of their members. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure, same with the KKK and neo-Nazis. That's because the MO of the entire organisation is violently criminal. Even in the absence of a centralised organisation, neo-Nazis have central principles that are abominable.

The same is not true of Trump supporters or Antifa. Trump supporters might be immoral in different ways, and Trump himself is certainly criminal and abominable, but one cannot characterise Trump supporters generally as violent criminals seeking to halt democracy, even if a LOT of them chose to behave that way. Nor can you say Trump supporters generally thump journalists, even though Trump himself egged them on.

Likewise Antifa does not have a central organising structure or principle responsible for the killing of fascists or thumping of journalists. It does not even share with Trump a sentiment that such things are ends. A willingness to meet fascist violence is obviously a central tenet, but that only makes the disingenuous identification of the response as the criminal element more pronounced as bias and propaganda.

But yes, when the authorities are either complicit or unhelpful in, say, stopping hate crimes then this type of vigilante action becomes more plausible — BitconnectCarlos

What would count as sufficient evidence that authorities are "either complicit or unhelpful in stopping hatecrimes"?

The same is not true of Trump supporters or Antifa. — Kenosha Kid

It comes down to how close these people are with their respective communities. If people are all living and eating and sleeping together, then that community is going to be under investigation and I don't care whether its a bird loving community. Uniforms are a big indicator. The closer people are with that group the more police should investigate, and investigation does not mean guilt.

I don't even know if the proclaimed MO of the organization is all that relevant. A hippie commune might proclaimed peace, love, and harmony but if they're out slaughtering celebrities they're getting investigated, and that extends beyond the actual perpetrators. Charlie Manson didn't kill anyone and he wasn't at the crime scene.

What would count as sufficient evidence that authorities are "either complicit or unhelpful in stopping hatecrimes"? — fdrake

I'm fine with neighborhood watches. Communities are allowed to defend themselves, but I think its a poor tactical decision to frame a neighborhood watch specifically as an antifascist defense force. It'll have the effect of alienating a portion of the population that isn't particularly political and may be a little confused or alarmed by the ideological bent of their neighborhood watch. Just call it a general neighborhood watch, cast a wide net, and defend your community from whatever crime there is. Everyone can get on board with neighborhood safety, you're going to confuse people when you introduce ideology, especially if this new neighborhood watch is dressed in all black with black masks. Appearance matters.

I'm fine with neighborhood watches. Communities are allowed to defend themselves, but I think its a poor tactical decision to frame a neighborhood watch specifically as an antifascist defense force. It'll have the effect of alienating a portion of the population that isn't particularly political and may be a little confused or alarmed by the ideological bent of their neighborhood watch. Just call it a general neighborhood watch, cast a wide net, and defend your community from whatever crime there is. Everyone can get on board with neighborhood safety, you're going to confuse people when you introduce ideology, especially if this new neighborhood watch is dressed in all black with black masks. Appearance matters. — BitconnectCarlos

What would sufficient evidence that police are unable or unwilling to do anything to help, again? Here's an excerpt from Dave Hann's book about the collaboration between neighbourhoods and the antifascist organisation the Anti Nazi League (ANL). NF is the fascist group the National Front. This is from 1978-1979 in the UK:

Almost as soon as the date for the second Carnival had been advertised, the NF countered it by declaring that they intended to march through the heart of the East End’s Bangladeshi community in Brick Lane on the very same day. Their move, which was an acknowledgment of the opposition generated by RAR events, sought to disrupt the Carnival and divide the anti-fascist movement. Prevarication followed by political expediency on the part of leading SWP members almost allowed them to achieve their goal.

It was announced from the Carnival stage that the situation in the East End was under control so people should stay and enjoy themselves. In fact, local ANL activists had telephoned their ANL national steering committee and begged them to send more “people down to help the anti-fascists at Brick Lane. Alongside the local ANL, members of various Trotskyist groups, anarchists and local anti-racists from the Hackney and Tower Hamlets Defence Committee tried to harass a 700 strong NF march but their numbers were too small to create any more effective action against the marchers and their police escorts. Local Bengali youth were kept away from the Front invaders by large numbers of antagonistic police. A rally at Church Road concluded the march and opened another fascist offensive. Groups broke away to threaten and cause damage to the area and its people. One gang of 50 to 60 skinheads smashed up shops on Brick Lane before being driven off by locals. — Dave Hann, Physical Resistance

The Bangladeshi community knew that the police would not stop the NF from stampeding through their neighbourhood, destroying property, assaulting people. So community members contacted the antifascist org to send militants prepared to counterdemonstrate, block the advance of the NF through the neighbourhood, and fight if need be. Not enough showed up due to the NF "demonstration" being tactically timed during another ANL event elsewhere, and predictably the NF committed acts of racist violence and property destruction.

The "neighbourhood watch" wasn't enough, the police didn't care to impede the publicly announced demonstration, sectarian violence ensued because the "last resort" of the ANL weren't there in enough numbers. How would you expect a neighbourhood watch to defend against an organised militia when the police violently protect that militia's right to march through the neighbourhood due to "absolute free speech"?

If people are all living and eating and sleeping together, then that community is going to be under investigation and I don't care whether its a bird loving community. — BitconnectCarlos

But Antifa are not that sort of community. There may exist communities of some Antifa members who do so, and some of those might be systematically violent and should be judged as such. But you're not trying to vilify such communities, should they exist (never heard of one) but a much larger group of people connected by a couple of common, non-violent interests. The aforementioned activist scrubbing Swastikas off walls is, by your logic, morally culpable for a violent individual she has never heard of shooting a violent fascist.

As I said, this is the logic of racism.

But Antifa are not that sort of community. There may exist communities of some Antifa members who do so, and some of those might be systematically violent and should be judged as such. — Kenosha Kid

There are also some antifa communes who probably fall somewhere in the middle between non-violence and violence, so again, we investigate the community when the individual commits the crime.

From a broader, ideological standpoint I consider the American antifascist movement quite suspect and video footage and journalism repeatedly reinforces my initial impression. I would not use the word "non-violent" to describe them or their ideology.

EDIT: If we took antifascism to its logical conclusion then we're talking about mass censorship and places certain individuals in charge of managing and determining that censorship. It is a deeply un-American ideal in practice.

The aforementioned activist scrubbing Swastikas off walls is, by your logic, morally culpable for a violent individual she has never heard of shooting a violent fascist. — Kenosha Kid

No, we judge people as individuals. If some dresses in all black and marches alongside antifa that's them choosing to associate themselves with that community.

The "neighbourhood watch" wasn't enough, the police didn't care to impede the publicly announced demonstration, sectarian violence ensued because the "last resort" of the ANL weren't there in enough numbers. How would you expect a neighbourhood watch to defend against an organised militia when the police violently protect that militia's right to march through the neighbourhood due to "absolute free speech"? — fdrake

But how do we know that larger numbers of ANL would have stopped the violence? This is a minor point though, because in the situation you describe it is clear that the community needed to call in the ANL as a last resort and I don't have any issue with that.

But the situation in America is basically this one but reversed: You have left-wing protesters destroying stores and "right wing" (really, anti-government boogaloes, not actual fascists) called in or requested to protect small business. I'm against allowing any group to destroy property, left or right.

Ideally the neighborhood watch wouldn't have to defend anything because a strong police presence would deter violence. I don't know about British law but in America you're allowed to have these types of demonstrations as long as they stay peaceful.

No, we judge people as individuals. — BitconnectCarlos

But that's precisely what you're not doing when you judge a great many people for criminal activity they are not responsible for.

I would not use the word "non-violent" to describe them or their ideology. — BitconnectCarlos

Well, we have to identify what ideological sources Antifa members generally use to derive their ideology. Pointing at extreme examples of individuals behaving monstrously is fallacious unless we have reason to believe that their membership of the organisation was a determining factor.

The KKK and neo-Nazis are unequivocally violent groups because they are founded on the idea of eliminating ethnic minorities altogether. Antifa is founded on the idea of eliminating not a physical characteristic but a culture, one that is violent and hateful. You've gone back to your abandoned first amendment argument here:

If we took antifascism to its logical conclusion then we're talking about mass censorship — BitconnectCarlos

You could say this about laws. If we take paedophile laws to their logical conclusion, paedophilia would be eliminated, and with it the ability to voice pro-paedophilia propaganda. But paedophilia is a crime, as is racial violence against ethnic minorities, and it's quite right to stamp it out. If that leaves no one left to express in it's favour, so much the better.

A lot of focus on ideology. Remember, an ideology is not equivalent to a personal set of beliefs. Ideologies are constructs arising from particular sets of circumstances and designed to be exaggerative and contrastive in order to evoke maximum effect. In a sense, an ideology is always simultaneously both the best and (depending on your perspective) the worst characteristics. As Clifford Geertz says, "it is through the construction of ideologies that man makes himself...a political animal."

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! — Kenosha Kid

Exactly. Only Antifa can do that, because they are more equal than every other voice.

But that's precisely what you're not doing when you judge a great many people for criminal activity they are not responsible for. — Kenosha Kid

You realize the KKK often isn't actually physical violent very often, right? Obviously their belief system is straight up toxic and it would explain the actions behind the groups act, but the KKK could also use this argument "oh only bad klansmen commit those acts, we, the organization, do not approve of it!" That's the justification they'll use. They're only sporadically violent, it's not their everyday business.

You could say this about laws. If we take paedophile laws to their logical conclusion, paedophilia would be eliminated, and with it the ability to voice pro-paedophilia propaganda. But paedophilia is a crime, as is racial violence against ethnic minorities, and it's quite right to stamp it out. If that leaves no one left to express in it's favour, so much the better. — Kenosha Kid

Anti-pedophile laws are just rules - no sex with minors. I don't see the "oh well if we extend that logic then..." argument. Voicing pro-pedophilia arguments, while gross, is defending under the first amendment. If we were to outlaw pedophiles (i.e. arresting anyone attracted to children) then we're in a completely different area philosophically. It doesn't follow from anti-pedophile laws (which is really just a prohibition) that anyone who feels sexual attraction to children should be arrested.

If you are serious about antifascism then you are talking about mass censorship, just admit it already. Nothing wrong with being about honest about the implications of ones views.

You're also talking about destroying a liberal arts education and not reading about certain thinkers, or atleast not allowing students to engage with thinkers like Hobbes.

You realize the KKK often isn't actually physical violent very often, right? Obviously their belief system is straight up toxic and it would explain the actions behind the groups act, but the KKK could also use this argument "oh only bad klansmen commit those acts, we, the organization, do not approve of it!" — BitconnectCarlos

And we know that is bullshit because of the long, violent, hateful history of the Klan. The raison d'etre of the KKK is violence oppression of black Americans. You'd have to be an especially ignorant person to think it was about fancy dress but, yes, such a person would be exempt.

I don't see the "oh well if we extend that logic then..." argument — BitconnectCarlos

Because your argument is that by opposing fascism, we're opposing the right of the fascist to express fascist views. That's trivially true of opposing anything. You can want for something to not exist and yet still express itself.

And we know that is bullshit because of the long, violent, hateful history of the Klan. The raison d'etre of the KKK is violence oppression of black Americans. You'd have to be an especially ignorant person to think it was about fancy dress but, yes, such a person would be exempt. — Kenosha Kid

The raison d'etre of the KKK is white supremacy, not the violent oppression of blacks. Violence happens but it's not a daily thing, you're treating it like it's a daily thing when it's not. A Klan speaker could easily say that they only use violence as a last resort.

Of course this is not me justifying them, just stating the facts. Especially in 2020. A hate group can still be a hate group but not use violence all the time.

Because your argument is that by opposing fascism, we're opposing the right of the fascist to express fascist views. That's trivially true of opposing anything. You can want for something to not exist and yet still express itself. — Kenosha Kid

No it is not trivially true. I oppose fascism, of course, but I don't believe in banning fascist literature or not allowing them to speak.

Do you think I'm pro-Nazi because I don't believe in banning Mein Kampf? So not being massively pro-censorship makes me basically pro-Nazi? Ok, not got it.

The raison d'etre of the KKK is white supremacy, not the violent oppression of blacks. Violence happens but it's not a daily thing, you're treating it like it's a daily thing when it's not. A Klan speaker could easily say that they only use violence as a last resort. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm sure they'd appreciate your generous characterisation. So if the criterion is *daily* violence, there are presumably no violent organisations. Daily violence wasn't among your reasons for characterising Antifa as violence, nor could it be.

No it is not trivially true. I oppose fascism, of course, but I don't believe in banning fascist literature or not allowing them to speak. — BitconnectCarlos

The logical conclusion of anti-fascism is the end of fascism, meaning no fascists to spout fascist ideas. It is illogical to claim you wish fascism to end but fascist ideas to be freely espoused.

Do you think I'm pro-Nazi because I don't believe in banning Mein Kampf? — BitconnectCarlos

No, I think you're pro-fascist because you consistently defend fascists for things you condemn anti-fascists for.

The logical conclusion of anti-fascism is the end of fascism, meaning no fascists to spout fascist ideas. It is illogical to claim you wish fascism to end but fascist ideas to be freely espoused. — Kenosha Kid

Do you agree with this too?

"The logical conclusion of anti-capitalism is the end of capitalism, meaning no [believers in the capitalist system] to spout capitalist ideas."

You're an anti-capitalist, right?

Whether I am or not makes no difference. It's your argument that being anti-fascist is a violation of freedom of expression on the grounds that anti-fascism seeks to stamp out fascism, and therefore fascist expression.

This is a minor point though, because in the situation you describe it is clear that the community needed to call in the ANL as a last resort and I don't have any issue with that. — BitconnectCarlos

So you're willing to agree that antifascist actions can be necessary, when they are a "last resort", what is sufficient evidence that the situation is a "last resort"? What made you believe the example that I gave you was a last resort when there was notable police presence at the demonstration?

Whether I am or not makes no difference. It's your argument that being anti-fascist is a violation of freedom of expression on the grounds that anti-fascism seeks to stamp out fascism, and therefore fascist expression. — Kenosha Kid

You can be an anti-fascist without advocate for banning all fascist expression. Banning everything just results in fascism going underground and creates a society where there's less transparency and honesty because people know they can't say certain things.

But just keep banning ideas you don't like: fascism, capitalism, maybe throw some religions in there, eh? Hell, even your allies probably have views and opinions that you don't like even they mostly agree with you - you can't let those stay, they'd be poison to the movement.

You can be an anti-fascist without advocate for banning all fascist expression. Banning everything just results in fascism going underground and creates a society where there's less transparency and honesty because people know they can't say certain things.

Chomsky made this point quite brilliantly in regards to Holocaust denial and anti-fascism. You shouldn’t try to suppress the fascist’s speech, you should try to win the argument.

Hold up, Chomsky is supporting actually engaging fascists in discussion? He must be a fascist himself, probably a Nazi. /s

Really insightful answer by Chomsky, by the way. I never thought I'd be agreeing with him but you learn something new everyday.

You can be an anti-fascist without advocate for banning all fascist expression. — BitconnectCarlos

What is the logical conclusion of anti-fascism?

What is the logical conclusion of anti-fascism? — Kenosha Kid

What is, democracy?

Its a jeopardy-like answer to a jeopardy-like question.

No more fascism, but you're not banning people from thinking it (because no one can) you're only sending the discourse underground. We don't have a holocaust denial problem here in the US and everyone just ignores those people. In Europe it's a bigger deal and holocaust deniers get much more coverage because they're doing something illegal and it gets blown up into this big thing. It's a little silly to think you can just ban it and it goes away; how has banning done when it comes to alcohol and drugs?

In Europe it's a bigger deal and holocaust deniers get much more coverage because they're doing something illegal and it gets blown up into this big thing. — BitconnectCarlos

And what's wrong with it being illegal in human made democratic laws if fascism is indeed something bad ... that inevitably leads into lands of the atrocious?

Tolerance for those who are intolerant can only lead to intolerance, period.

I get the need to talk to others. But this can only have any meaningful effect/affect when the other is of an open mind and is listening. Otherwise, it becomes an issue of fending off offensive violence with defensive violence.