What is, democracy?

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

Read the context or shush.

No more fascism, but you're not banning people from thinking it (because no one can) you're only sending the discourse underground. — BitconnectCarlos

Is that what you think the aims of anti-fascism are? Just to drive fascism underground?

I never read Heideggar but he might be gone too. — BitconnectCarlos

Considering that you haven’t read Heideggar why then do you think he should be gone.

That’s an odd statement in a discussion about Fascism.

Is that what you think the aims of anti-fascism are? Just to drive fascism underground? — Kenosha Kid

The "end" of anti-fascism is for there to be no more believers in fascism, but by outright banning fascism you're just driving it underground so that whenever it does resurface it becomes a bigger thing.



Read again the context of what I was saying. I wasn't saying we need to ban Heideggar, I was saying that if we established a governmental committee to ban anything related to fascism they could very well decide to ban Heideggar or anything even remotely related to fascism.

The "end" of anti-fascism is for there to be no more believers in fascism — BitconnectCarlos

Right, so this will leave no-one to express fascist ideas. And that's the extent to which anti-fascism censors fascism. No one is invading Klan meetings on private property. If fascists deface property with vile fascist slogans, they get cleaned up. If fascists have public matches, anti-fascists march against them. If fascists respond violently, they are met with violence.

Tbh I think your argument was lost when you described Antifa as systematically violent but the KKK not. That's so divorced from reality and betrays such a bias toward violent right-wing racist murderers as to make your position indefensible.

Read the context or shush. — Kenosha Kid

Blushingly, point taken.

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? — fdrake

You're just going to have to go by the specific situation and ask yourself questions like how many right-wingers we're expecting to show up, do the right wingers have a history of violence, what is the police presence like, how about the presence of counter-protesters who may provide a "check" but not be antifa themselves? here in boston we had a right wing rally back in 2017 where like 50 right-wingers showed up and tens of thousands of counter-protesters with a strong police presence, do we really need to call in antifa here?

It would be absurd to lay down any absolute philosophical principle for when to call in armed, antifascist groups.

By the way, if you need any more proof that antifa is not fundamentally in the liberal tradition check out my discussion with Kenosha kid. It's just really an interesting example of how a liberal like myself perceives politics as opposed to Kenosha who basically perceives politics as war with the goal of absolutely destroying the opposition permanently. I can't help but notice the frequency of this thought within antifa/the far left.

Right, so this will leave no-one to express fascist ideas. And that's the extent to which anti-fascism censors fascism. No one is invading Klan meetings on private property. If fascists deface property with vile fascist slogans, they get cleaned up. If fascists have public matches, anti-fascists march against them. If fascists respond violently, they are met with violence.

Tbh I think your argument was lost when you described Antifa as systematically violent but the KKK not. That's so divorced from reality and betrays such a bias toward violent right-wing racist murderers as to make your position indefensible. — Kenosha Kid

No, again, the fascists will just be driven underground, like drug use in the war on drugs or alcohol during prohibition.

Well thanks for the post-mortem, I'll try to do better next time, Kenosha. This discussion has been enlightening for me because it's very apparent that you basically consider the enterprise of politics as basically a war of all against all with the end goal of absolutely annihilating the opposition. This actually puts you in good company with thinkers like Hobbes and Schmitt, in complete opposition to the democratic liberal tradition of course. Good discussion.

No, again, the fascists will just be driven underground, like drug use in the war on drugs or alcohol during prohibition. — BitconnectCarlos

You can engage them with giving them a platform that gives them the appearance of legitimacy. Giving them that platform injures society because of what it perpetuates in both sides.

Obviously I believe in engagement. I'm engaging you (trying to anyway), but I also recognize when engagement is dangerous. I think you do too, right?

Obviously I believe in engagement. — frank

So what are we arguing about?

ut I also recognize when engagement is dangerous. I think you do too, right? — frank

Sure it's dangerous if they pull out a knife...

So what are we arguing about? — BitconnectCarlos

Drawing a line, I guess.

We don't even have to personally engage fascists, in fact I usually don't because it's unproductive. What antifa wants is to ban any expression of it including books or blog posts.

What antifa wants is to ban any expression of it including books or blog posts. — BitconnectCarlos

They don't have the power to do that, but they're free to suggest it. :razz:

in fact I usually don't because it's unproductive — BitconnectCarlos

What kind of fascist did you talk to? Just curious.

They don't have the power to do that, but they're free to suggest it. :razz: — frank

yeah it's all fun and games as long as they're not in power.

What kind of fascist did you talk to? Just curious. — frank

haha, as a rule I don't really engage with actual fascists but I gotta say the discussion with kenosha kid was telling. I don't mean to start any beef here but I can't help but notice the similarities between that thinking and some of the fascist thinkers I've read.

yeah it's all fun and games as long as they're not in power. — BitconnectCarlos

Said the Jewish guy in Dachau.

It would be absurd to lay down any absolute philosophical principle for when to call in armed, antifascist groups. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not asking for absolutes. I'm asking you to detail what convinced you antifa was necessary in the historical example I gave you. What I'm hoping for is a concrete and in context response, we can see later if there's any justifying principles for your approval of antifascist action in this context. I don't want to talk about the supposed ideology of antifa or whatever yet, I wanna talk about under what conditions antifascists turning up at a protest prepared for violence in self defence or in defence of others is justifiable.

You're just going to have to go by the specific situation and ask yourself questions like how many right-wingers we're expecting to show up, do the right wingers have a history of violence, what is the police presence like, how about the presence of counter-protesters who may provide a "check" but not be antifa themselves? here in boston we had a right wing rally back in 2017 where like 50 right-wingers showed up and tens of thousands of counter-protesters with a strong police presence, do we really need to call in antifa here? — BitconnectCarlos

Some extra detail about the example I gave:

You're just going to have to go by the specific situation and ask yourself questions like how many right-wingers we're expecting to show up,

In this case it was known beforehand that organised counterprotesters+local community members would be greatly outnumbered by the fascist demonstrators.

do the right wingers have a history of violence

The people going to the demonstration in the Bangladeshi neighbourhood did have a history of violence.

what is the police presence like

In context it looked as if there were enough police to secure the fascist demonstration while they were one block, but there was not enough to police its predicted after effects; much of the violence occurred after the bulk of fascist thugs stopped sieg hailing as a contained unit and broke off into smaller groups which, intentionally, are harder for police to check. The police advantage comes from being relatively armed, relatively coordinated, and in position to guide/confine the demonstration.

In case that isn't clear: say there's 50 police and 500 protesters and all protesters are in one block, the organised efforts of the police act as a force multiplier - they control the movement of the 500 protesters.

Let's say the 500 protesters break up into connected streets in groups of 50, now you've got to expect 5 police officers to manage 50 people who are moving outside of the police's crowd management strategy. The police are still relatively armed, but they're out of position and can't put on a coordinated defence since they're reacting to the movements of the sieg hailing loonies.

In practice, the police could not ensure oversight of all the splintering groups over the surrounding neighbourhoods. Not only did the group of 50-60 thugs splinter off that way, they did so without any officers there.

And just to note; antifascist militants rarely turn up armed. That tends to land them in jail or endanger them needlessly.

I think it's not instructive to think about the ideology of antifa and broader questions of free speech in the same breath as whether militant antifascist strategy is fine in any normal political context. It seems to me you believe it was fine in this case, why?

Read again the context of what I was saying. — BitconnectCarlos

Sorry, I didn’t pick up the tone. I was actually a bit confused on the basis of other posts you’d made.

:rofl: All good, meant lightly.

No, again, the fascists will just be driven underground — BitconnectCarlos

So now you're back to saying the ideal of anti-fascism (which is the point in hand) is to drive fascism underground. The right will just say anything, as I've pointed out before. They're shameless.

I'm not asking for absolutes. I'm asking you to detail what convinced you antifa was necessary in the historical example I gave you. — fdrake

First, thanks for the detailed historical write up. I enjoyed learning about this event from your descriptions.

I would say in that instance it was acceptable to call in a militant leftist group as a last resort given that it's reasonable to believe that the community may be in danger from a group with a history of violence, plus the fact that the police can't be entirely relied upon to maintain safety.

So now you're back to saying the ideal of anti-fascism (which is the point in hand) is to drive fascism underground. — Kenosha Kid

No, I'm saying the actual policy of banning fascist speech & expression drives fascism underground. You can't ban fascist thought you can only ban fascist speech and expression.

No, I'm saying the actual policy of banning fascist speech & expression drives fascism underground. — BitconnectCarlos

And as we've already agreed, Antifa is not a reformist organisation. They are not trying to ban anything.

And as we've already agreed, Antifa is not a reformist organisation. They are not trying to ban anything. — Kenosha Kid

Nobody is against cleaning up swastikas from building, but you can't go around punching fascists simply for speaking, sorry.

One would have to be a real crackpot to hand over the reins to a group like US Antifa on "how to combat fascism". I don't even trust them to define it. Sadly, I think it is easy to argue that Antifa has greatly diminished the image of anti-fascist rhetoric and thinking. If the US ever does see a rise in fascism then maybe it is because people came to see anti-fascism as radical leftists with masks who protest right-wing politics thus they stop treating the topic with the same emphasis. The word fascism has lost a great deal of its meaning, an already hard-to-understand idea and now it's even more difficult for the average westerner to understand and identify.

When someone like Trump does act out dangerously fascistic behaviour, what happens when he's called out on it? It's a mix of the "boy who cried wolf" and the watered-down definition of fascism, the way it's been used politically to just smear, it's not going to be taken seriously. Antifa has literally become a convenient scapegoat for Trump, how can any reasonable person take them seriously? What have they achieved? Nothing but a negative PR campaign for their own cause.

As opposed to fascism being driven underground or "banned" it's better that everyone is aware of what it is and knows why it's a bad alternative. That being said, many actual fascist policies are against the law and much of what we saw in the rise of fascism of the 1930s would not be remotely legal.

The word fascism has lost a great deal of its meaning, an already hard-to-understand idea and now it's even more difficult for the average westerner to understand and identify. — Judaka

Yeah.

One thing I gleaned from my discussion with Kenosha Kid was that he essentially views the enterprise of politics as nothing short of war, with the final objective to be to annihilate opposing ideas. I'd really love to trace the roots of this idea because I've heard it before. It reminds me Hobbes' idea of "a war of all against all" but I know the context doesn't quite match. In any case this is a very different from the democratic liberal tradition which views discourse and reconciliation as a normal part of politics.

Fascism is not a hard-to-understand idea. It's just totalitarian hegelian rhetoric. It has not depth, it's all shiny mirrors.

Which does not mean that you can talk a fascist out of it, mind you. Any good ideologue lives in his own comfy mental prison, and he doesn't want to get out. You can't reach out to them by way of words. I've tried many times, not anymore.

Nobody is against cleaning up swastikas from building, but you can't go around punching fascists simply for speaking, sorry. — BitconnectCarlos

If a fascist punches me, I'll punch him back. So yeah I can.

Duh, obviously.

Duh, obviously. — BitconnectCarlos

Then there's no problem. Oh yeah, I forgot... Nazis and the Klan aren't violent.

One of these days I should just pick a random argument with you and misinterpret everything you say.

One of these days I should just pick a random argument with you and misinterpret everything you say. — BitconnectCarlos

I'll respond with shameless inconsistency to avoid addressing your points.