Who are Antifa? A very interesting and balanced article.
Foreigners looking in at America from a observational point of view.
Who are Antifa? A very interesting and balanced article.
Foreigners looking in at America from a observational point of view.
Who is ANTIFA? Simple really. They're communist pieces of sh*t who label anyone who disagrees with them as being "fascists" while they themselves behave EXACTLY like fascists. They're terrorist scum, plain and simple. Some lame a** article by the BBC (LOL) is not gonna change that.
Not surprising that Marxist-loving pooty is desperately trying to do some damage control for his terrorist heroes after they've now been officially designated as a terrorist organization by our great president.
Oh pooty... smh.
Another interesting and balanced article, which explains a great deal.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/01/trump-antifa-terrorist-organization/
Originally posted by ScribbleSay what you will about Antifa, but they are not authoritarian.
How is this article balanced? It's basically an advertisement for Antifa. No mention of their authoritarian tendencies, nor any attempt to highlight their extreme-left communist backbone (they wave red flags, ffs).Shame on the BBC.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Bullshit, they're not.
They aren't they are non-hierarchical, decentralized groups. If anything they are closer to anarchists, but the truth is that they don't have any specific political agenda, except being vaguely on the left, and believing that fascist movements need to be opposed with force.
Originally posted by ArtolThey intend to stamp out viewpoints that they don't like through violence or the threat of violence. That is textbook authoritarianism.
Say what you will about Antifa, but they are not authoritarian.
They may identify as 'anarchists', but they aren't. They act like the state police of a future communist dystopia.
Originally posted by ArtolThe red in their flag signifies communism. Like, it does. This isn't a point of contention or debate. They are communists.
They aren't they are non-hierarchical, decentralized groups. If anything they are closer to anarchists, but the truth is that they don't have any specific political agenda, except being vaguely on the left, and believing that fascist movements need to be opposed with force.
Originally posted by Artol👆 bang on!
They aren't they are non-hierarchical, decentralized groups. If anything they are closer to anarchists, but the truth is that they don't have any specific political agenda, except being vaguely on the left, and believing that fascist movements need to be opposed with force.
Communism is a political ideology that spans the whole range from Anarchists to Stalinist. Violence and authoritarianism are not the same thing, it is true, as I stated, that what unifies them is the believe that you must oppose fascism through violence. This view is historically informed by the rise of fascist dictatorships in the 20s and 30s, but of course there can be disagreement on tactics. Most liberal societies do agree that you must use violence to oppose elements that are bent on destruction of the liberal order, btw, so this is by no means a communist idea only.
Originally posted by ArtolIf Antifa just targeted legit fascist groups, then sure, maybe your argument would somewhat work. Your naivety shows that you still believe Antifa to only be against fascists, which they are not. They oppose anything "right of Mao", as the phrase goes.
Communism is a political ideology that spans the whole range from Anarchists to Stalinist. Violence and authoritarianism are not the same thing, it is true, as I stated, that what unifies them is the believe that you must oppose fascism through violence. This view is historically informed by the rise of fascist dictatorships in the 20s and 30s, but of course there can be disagreement on tactics. Most liberal societies do agree that you must use violence to oppose elements that are bent on destruction of the liberal order, btw, so this is by no means a communist idea only.
"Violence and authoritarianism are not the same thing," but authoritarianism requires violence to silence dissenting voices, which is exactly what Antifa do. They masquerade as the enemies of the fascist boogeymen whilst spreading their own far-left brand of authoritarian ideology.
The far-left and the far-right are enemies. In the UK, the racist band Skrewdriver started a movement called "Rock Against Communism" — now, I oppose communism, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to ally with fascists against the communists. Just like I'm not willing to ally with communists against the fascists.
Originally posted by Artol👆 Bang on! They're really arent enough of them to pull the shit Trump is pretending, he is doing what he does best playing on some people's fears whilst supporting the Alt Right.
Communism is a political ideology that spans the whole range from Anarchists to Stalinist. Violence and authoritarianism are not the same thing, it is true, as I stated, that what unifies them is the believe that you must oppose fascism through violence. This view is historically informed by the rise of fascist dictatorships in the 20s and 30s, but of course there can be disagreement on tactics. Most liberal societies do agree that you must use violence to oppose elements that are bent on destruction of the liberal order, btw, so this is by no means a communist idea only.
I mean that's clearly not true, I mean it is fair enough that you disagree with whether their targets are well picked, that's a valid argument you can have, and there's surely mistakes that a autonomous, decentralized groups will make, but they don't attack all structure, it is clearly those that they believe are fascist. Perhaps you are mixing them up with some other leftist groups that have other tactics, like maybe the black bloc?
Authoritarianism requires violence, but so do basically all structures of power, including the liberal democracies of the US and UK, and the social democracies of France, Sweden, Germany. So again, violence is clearly not a sufficient trait to claim something is authoritarian.
This is a simplistic view, for first you must ask who defines what is far outside the political acceptable. If we look at trends historically we can see an economic move to the right in Western countries, meaning that ideologies that were in the past completely in the mainstream are often labelled by media and politicians as far-left now. While inhumane capitalist ideas have become so mainstream they are almost unquestionably accepted.
Your "I'm not willing to ally with communists" again seems to suggest a very limited understanding of what communism means, and I may suggest to you that one of the reasons why the NSDAP was able to grab power is because social democrats and conservatives were unwilling to work together with communists (the latter even siding with fascists outright).
Originally posted by ArtolBang on again, you are an excellent addition to this forum Artol.
I mean that's clearly not true, I mean it is fair enough that you disagree with whether their targets are well picked, that's a valid argument you can have, and there's surely mistakes that a autonomous, decentralized groups will make, but they don't attack all structure, it is clearly those that they believe are fascist. Perhaps you are mixing them up with some other leftist groups that have other tactics, like maybe the black bloc?Authoritarianism requires violence, but so do basically all structures of power, including the liberal democracies of the US and UK, and the social democracies of France, Sweden, Germany. So again, violence is clearly not a sufficient trait to claim something is authoritarian.
This is a simplistic view, for first you must ask who defines what is far outside the political acceptable. If we look at trends historically we can see an economic move to the right in Western countries, meaning that ideologies that were in the past completely in the mainstream are often labelled by media and politicians as far-left now. While inhumane capitalist ideas have become so mainstream they are almost unquestionably accepted.
Your "I'm not willing to ally with communists" again seems to suggest a very limited understanding of what communism means, and I may suggest to you that one of the reasons why the NSDAP was able to grab power is because social democrats and conservatives were unwilling to work together with communists (the latter even siding with fascists outright).
Originally posted by ArtolI'm just going to keep saying it until you understand it: using violence to stifle political dissent is authoritarianism. Antifa are authoritarians. They may be somewhat decentralised, yes, but there is such a thing as the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' — decentralised; still authoritarian.
I mean that's clearly not true, I mean it is fair enough that you disagree with whether their targets are well picked, that's a valid argument you can have, and there's surely mistakes that a autonomous, decentralized groups will make, but they don't attack all structure, it is clearly those that they believe are fascist. Perhaps you are mixing them up with some other leftist groups that have other tactics, like maybe the black bloc?Authoritarianism requires violence, but so do basically all structures of power, including the liberal democracies of the US and UK, and the social democracies of France, Sweden, Germany. So again, violence is clearly not a sufficient trait to claim something is authoritarian.
This is a simplistic view, for first you must ask who defines what is far outside the political acceptable. If we look at trends historically we can see an economic move to the right in Western countries, meaning that ideologies that were in the past completely in the mainstream are often labelled by media and politicians as far-left now. While inhumane capitalist ideas have become so mainstream they are almost unquestionably accepted.
Your "I'm not willing to ally with communists" again seems to suggest a very limited understanding of what communism means, and I may suggest to you that one of the reasons why the NSDAP was able to grab power is because social democrats and conservatives were unwilling to work together with communists (the latter even siding with fascists outright).
I think your naivety shows that you still see 'communism' just as a set of ideological principles. Yes, I'm quite aware and well-versed in leftist ideology, for I was once an anarchist teen, with communist sympathies. I read Marx, Engels, yaddah yaddah. Sartre, etc. They all want to create their wonderful, anti-authoritarian utopia.
But reality and history has shown what communism is in practice. So I don't care about detailed distinctions between different kinds of communism. I use the term to identify the authoritarian far-left, which, in practice, is a pretty good way of using it, as it describes something real, not a Marxist hippie's hashish dream.
Also, yeah, I would take fascism over communism any day. Look at the fascist dictatorships: most fell incredibly quickly, with the exception of Franco's regime in Spain. However, all of the countries got over it. Countries subject to communist dictatorships are still living in its shadow. So yeah, I'd take a short-lived fascist dictatorship over the never-ending hell of communism. (FYI, communism has a much, much higher death toll than fascism, like so much higher it's not even funny)
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!He actually breaks down posts and replies to them in a sensible and polite manner. I hope he doesn't get corrupted by you and the rest of the shit-slingers on both sides; this place could do with some real conversation, for once.
Bang on again, you are an excellent addition to this forum Artol.