Some would say that Nazi ideology is inherently violent, and any act of violence done to them is self defense because of that. When they are saying “Jews and black people need to be removed from the country and we need you to help!” how is that not violent? How are you supposed to ‘debate’ with someone who position is ‘you and your family don’t deserve to live’
5 Likes
You’re quite right, which is why I say the best trap is the one you get the opponent to build for itself. People have been punching Nazis in the street for decades, and yet, here we are. As we saw in the election, you can’t always tell who the fascist/racist is until they act on it; in the voting booth, in the street, whatever. Introduce a set of circumstances that makes them tear themselves apart, as they are actively attempting to do to us. A divided enemy is a weak enemy. Divide them and make them fall on each other.
(Refer to the OP’s post on memetics and you’ll start to see what I’m on about. Ideas are bulletproof, yada yada.)
So many good points. We’ve got to look at the results, not the reactions.
1 Like
I’m gonna poke my head in to highlight something in the forum rules real quick:
Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree
You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid:
Name-calling
Ad hominem attacks
Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content
Knee-jerk contradiction
Let’s make sure that when we’re discussing and debating these points, we don’t resort to ad hominem or condescension in the process.
On top of that, let’s try to refrain from gatekeeping in any kind of context. Some people have more experience than others, but that doesn’t mean we should be swinging it around too much. Let’s focus on debating points, not posters.
5 Likes
I’m not saying you’re wrong. But I’ll always support violent (and non-violent of course) opposition to Fascism and it’s adherents, always. Fascism doesn’t rise in spite of Liberal Democracy, but because of it. Don’t afford those who want to take away people’s rights the same rights they want to take away, ever.
That being said, violence is largely ineffective, almost always. But it’s necessary at times. And will be necessary for the foreseeable future, until humanity evolves beyond our current tendencies.
2 Likes
Very true, and I wouldn’t want the conclusion drawn that I support giving fascists a platform because “That’s America, and you all get a chance to talk.” But using their messages and platforms to take them down from inside is where I see the most productive potential.
Exactly this. You can beat Nazis in the streets and run for local office, or organize people politically, etc-. In fact, ideally people should be doing both right now. And to the credit of people here in the US (who I don’t necessarily agree with) like, The Austin Red Guards, various if not all DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) chapters, The John Brown Gun Club, the SRA (Socialist Rifle Association), and more are literally fighting and intimidating Fascists in the streets, AND organizing people locally for political action.
TL;DR: Taking the fight to the Fasc and getting involved in local politics aren’t at all mutually exclusive.
1 Like
You’'re gonna want to work on that reasoning. Because you’re basically saying “Don’t fight Nazis, because it’ll make them want to go do Nazi things, like attack people.”
They do that, period, all the time. It’s literally a staple of what they are. There’s a reason people attack them of sight.
As far as teh “divided people” thing…we’re already as divided as could be right now. And Anti-Fascist movements and groups are actively trying to united the people, while putting Fascists in their place (bleeding in the dirt).
If seeing Fascists get attacked for being fucking Fascists, turns you to their cause, you were already one of them; you were just looking for an excuse.
TL;DR: Don’t blame others for Nazis being Nazis.
2 Likes
Why not stand up to them while offering an alternative?
in France, Melechon offered an alternative and he mobilized millions upon millions of people. It wasn’t enough to make it to the 2nd round though.
In the US, the Liberal Center is too focused on trying to keep the growing Left out of power to even acknowledge the existence of the Fascists.
Basically, the people offering the only real alternative have to fight both the Liberal orders and the Fascists, at the same time. All while actively turning people to their side, and they are. In the US, after the election membership of the Democratic Socialists of America tripled.
I can see where you’d draw this conclusion, but that’s not where my head is at. I’m all for a good punch, if it helps. But always be checking the context of where you are and who’s around. As you’ve pointed out, violence does not present a long-term solution, but can absolutely get someone in need out of a bad spot. You say we couldn’t be more divided, but I disagree. All the ingredients of an open civil war are there, but we haven’t yet seen the catalyst. That catalyst is what I’m wary of.
@Regmcfly’s post about the 500+ crowd turning a Nazi salute into something laughable is amazing, something I hope to see repeated and pushed further.
1 Like
As someone who’s part of an antifascist group, I think the “Nazi-punching” is overstated by those who misunderstand the history and work of antifa (and, of course, by radicools peacocking another kind of hyper-masculinity).
Much of antifascist work involves boring old research into far-right organizing to try to confound it before it starts. Then there’s pressure work and advocacy. And finally, yes, there is the willingness to meet them in the streets, to actually oppose the presence of pernicious politics. We’ve been doing this while people were sitting on their hands in the 1930s.
I think people rightfully get turned off by hyper-masculinity that still pervades the left (like society in general). I think antifascist organizing is where you might be surprised by what you find if you got involved. 
On far-right speech, Richard Seymour wrote a good blog post a couple months back on why the liberal tendency towards debating the fash is misguided. A selection:
The problem is, in part, that operating liberal political theories about ‘speech’ – the theories that, whether we ‘believe’ them are not, tend to be the ones that predominantly guide people’s actions and responses – are centuries behind the state of knowledge about how language works. It is still assumed that language is basically a neutral conduit, transferring meaning from one to the other, rather than something which is done to you. Meaning itself is treated as something contained in the language, which we may decide to unpack and digest, rather than as a form of intending, something which acts on us, by means of the very materiality of language and what it activates in us. If language does things to us, if we find that disagreeing is somehow just not adequate as a response, if it makes us want to throw a punch, or a brick, it must be because we’re triggered snowflakes who can’t deal with the argument.
The advantage that fascists have on this terrain is that they do not behave as though they are having a conversation. They are aware that they are throwing verbal bricks, and that in good time, in circumstances of their choosing, they’ll throw literal bricks or bullets. In the meantime, they are taking advantage of the protocols of mainstream media communication to amplify their voice without in any serious way engaging with their opponents. […]
Opposition, not exposition, is the priority. I am not advocating tactical narrowness. There may be circumstances in which it makes sense to ‘debate’ a fascist. There may be circumstances in which not debating them would be the worst option. But there is no conversation to be had here, and the taunt that slimy alt-right trolls offer, that their opponents will not debate them, is part of the troll.
12 Likes
I’m not totally clear. Your contention is that if someone violently opposes a fascist or enough people violently oppose enough fascists that… we’ll land ourselves in a civil war? Between who?
1 Like
Thanks for this (and thank you for your work). I was trying to articulate some of that in my first post and totally failed.
4 Likes
I wanted to mention (but forgot to) that a successful antifascist action is often unseen. For example, there was a nationwide day of “alt-right” flyering planned for April 23rd that largely fizzled and failed. Research was done, intel collected, press releases were sent to college campuses around the country (USA), and antifa volunteers went on campus in the wee hours of the morning when the flyering was planned. With some exceptions, not much happened at all on April 23rd; the fash didn’t even show up. Whether or not the potential of getting punched in the head was a deterrent or not is not something I have empirical data for but am somewhat confident it’s a worthwhile part of the package.
5 Likes
I’m not sure I’m comfortable calling which teams would make it to the “Big Show” as it were, but I see the principle of “power must be met with power” being acted out all over the place these days. Being a young guy with little practical experience in antifascist work, I can only theorize other options in line with Bruce Lee’s philosophy of using the opponent’s strength against them. Fist-to-fist encounters seem unproductive, and ultimately raises the pressure to a serious conflict. I would much rather turn to @mikael or someone with real experience in this area for guidance. I’ve been doing way too much talking.
That is a fair point. Any alternatives attainable enough should no doubt leech a lot of the lifeblood out of the rise of fascism. The problem I have with a lot of these European candidates is that they have a party built on minority opposition, not on winning any elections.
Mélenchon might have been popular with youth, but France also has a checks and balances system that would have prevented him from delivering on a lot of his claims. All laws are subject to the constitution and a lot of policies could not be applied without being passed by the senate. Having radical ideas and not controlling the senate would have made him a sitting duck. Only feeding into the disillusion and driving more average people to the right when eventually nothing happens for them.
I do not know the US instances too intimately, so I’m bound to say something without knowing the full scope - but reporters from Western Europe touring the US are seeing parts of your country in an absolutely dreadful state. Entire states seem in the grasp of failing mining industries, social support systems are having little impact, etc. My thinking would be that unless the US Left gets a party together that can provide a solution for those kind of people, I can’t imagine them ever gaining a solid enough victory to make radical change.
I’m not saying your political stances on these matters/countries are invalid, per se. I’m saying they need to convince and appeal to enough of an average voter across your country to ensure you can actually even get something done, right? Especially in a winner-takes-all kind of system like France and the US. That doesn’t mean toning down your radicalism, even - it just means the parties and institutions have to provide solutions to problems existing, not just rhetoric.
1 Like
I think part of my problem is that violence is often narrowly defined. Dehumanizing language is often an act of violence, partly because it often leads to an escalation into physical violence, but also because its effect on the target is much the same, or in some cases worse, than a mere punch to the face.
As such, since Nazis employ violence even when they’re not throwing punches, a physical reaction to that violence is warranted. Just so long as the response is narrowly targeted.
5 Likes
Doesn’t that definition have run the risk of becoming a slippery slope though? if that is the definition we choose to stand by then what is stopping fascists from using the same logic to say that they were provoked into actual physical violence by anti-fascist rhetoric? I do agree with your categorization of dehumanizing and mean spirited language in general, but I just don’t know if blurring the lines between that and physical violence is a not positive going forward.
couple points
- There has been a disturbing trend in attitudes toward democracy in general, evidenced in the research of Yascha Mounk and Roberto Stefan Foa. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/08/yes-millennials-really-are-surprisingly-approving-of-dictators/?utm_term=.10433c840852
How much of the demonstrated skepticism of democracy is un-articulated frustration toward counter-populist bodies like the Senate / Electoral College, and how much of it is genuine desire for a dictator has yet to be determined. - Nazi-punching, while great as a rhetorical device, has never proven to be an effective tactic in terms of combating Nazi-type people. In terms of violence, hand-to-hand combat just isn’t efficient enough–that one time we actually faced significant amounts of Nazis, we used guns and bombs for years on end. Furthermore, there is the unspoken reliance on state power to mitigate any Nazi-punching; violence only seems to break out within the managed setting of protests, which by their nature, are overseen by police, limiting the effectiveness of whatever violence is implemented and confusing matters by bringing a third party into the conflict.
- It seems to me that a revolutionary act, in terms of US-specific actions, would be to figure out some way to break the historical trend of non-participation in half of the elections that are held. Every mid-term election sees a drop of 1/3 of voters who voted in the presidential election just two years prior, a full 20% of eligible voters. This isn’t a recent development; it’s been happening since at least the passage of the 13th Amendment. If fascism finds a way to take root here, it will be through the openings we leave for it by leaving our voices unheard.
2 Likes
I’m glad that this thread has sparked discussion here on fighting Fascists in the street and in parliament, but lets not forget that htey mostly exist in online spaces. And from these spaces they conduct what has been described by NATO’s own Strategic Communications department as “Hybrid Warfare”.
They (The new Fascists) call it “magic(k)”. And the saddest of them truly believe some Ancient Egyptian frog deity is helping them spread Fascism. Needless to say, it isn’t mystical or otherworldly, it’s Science.
