Antifa is the name of a loose collection of domestic terrorist groups that have a penchant dressing in all black gear, looting and burning businesses, police stations and government buildings (such as Minneapolis in 2020 and the recent attack on “Cop City” in Atlanta), injuring scores of police officers in the process, often in the name of “Black Lives Matter” or “Defunding the Police”.
Antifa is the name of a loose collection of domestic terrorist groups that have a penchant dressing in all black gear, looting and burning businesses, police stations and government buildings (such as Minneapolis in 2020 and the recent attack on “Cop City” in Atlanta), injuring scores of police officers in the process, often in the name of “Black Lives Matter” or “Defunding the Police”.
I'm in favor of all antifascism, "Antifa" included (the right inflates to ridiculous levels the violence antifa uses, which makes me think you belong to the right). Whatever tactics are needed to fight fascism are positive. There is no compromising with it, period. It seems that for you, real fascism (a right wing phenomenon) is benign in comparison with the struggle against it by anti-fascists. It's clear where you stand.
Do you believe in looting and riots, and robbing stores and the destruction of property, even hurting people to make a point? There are many ways to combat fascism without implementing violence. I suspect if it was your property, or the welfare of your family to make their point your perspective would do an about face.
It wouldn't be me that was targeted, believe me. Tell me, should folks have been polite and law-abiding towards Hitler and Mussolini? Or any of a host of other vicious dictators like Pol Pot, Pinochet, Suharto or Marcos or their supporters? Fascism is the ultimate enemy of the people, and it must be fought tooth-and-nail any of a number of ways, some of which may include property damage, yes. Though I'm not at all a fan of physical violence, even it may be called for in certain rare circumstances (or may occur accidentally). It's called diversity of tactics. The fight against fascism is a deadly serious one. It's not for the faint-hearted.
No one could possible disagree that one should stand up to fascism. I could mention a family member way back who was a highly recognized participant in the World Federalist Movement in the US, and stood up to Fascism back home. He didn't engage in violence, since engaging in it would only replicate what you're fighting against. Antifa has engaged in violence and I cannot condone that. When Antifa mixed in with the BLM marches in New York, did you approve their violence, approve their attacking people, vandalizing stores? Who do you think is going to pick up the tab for their destruction?
A purely nonviolent approach to fascism is almost certainly doomed to failure. Again, what would you do in the face of fascism if you were its target? Would you merely turn the other cheek? Just be passive and hope to survive? Or would you fight back with all your might? I hope the latter! Was it good that the Jews just got on the trains to the ovens because fighting back physically would have been impolite? To me property damage concerns should not even be in the discussion when human rights and human life is at stake. If you're concerned about property damage, bill the government that made it necessary. As John Kennedy said "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable".
My problem with your response in dealing with fascism has nothing to do with Hitler, or Mussolini, and many did fight back. WWII. Many people in the countries affected. like Poland, fought back and took on great loses of life. You want to justify the actions of Antifa, so be it.. You have not been specific in defining incidents which you would define as fascistic, and justify the violence you are advocating. .
Violence against women; invasion of women's bodies via banning of abortion; book banning; police killings of black people in cold blood with virtual impunity; millions of deaths caused by invasions and sanctions; the torture of thousands in American prisons; the crime of killing via homelessness and lack of medical, mental health and drug treatment care; wage theft causing impoverishment and suicides; etc, etc, etc. My hand is getting tired. Is that enough for you?
Nope, not in the slightest. Strict nonviolence is the luxury of the comfortable. Black people would laugh in your face, for example, if you told them they should never be violent in the face of state violence. This country wouldn't even be here without violence. Slavery wouldn't have ended without violence. The Axis powers would have prevailed without violence. This fetish for nonviolence is extremely ahistorical and again, is only adopted by people who do not feel a strong alliance with all who are severely oppressed (do they expect those people just to take whatever is thrown their way without defending themselves?), who can afford it because they are white and not extremely poor and are therefore less in danger, or who are in denial about the extreme dangers we all face, like the imminent threat of annihilation from nuclear war and environmental destruction, at the hands of the fascists. Kumbaya alone ain't going to do it.
Look don't take on that self righteous air and preach to me. No one is suggesting not to fight back and sometimes one has to engage in violence, but this discussion started off talking about Antifa and the needless violence implemented by them, of which I do not approve. No more then I approve of needless violence implemented by the police, nor do I approve of spousal, or child abuse, but change is possible without it. Martin Luther King is a good example of that. You'll never convince me, so why bother. Violence begets more violence as they say. The end.
Let's see if you would adopt that attitude if it was your dad, or your store, and it was vandalized. It's windows broken, it's door smashed in, it's merchandise stolen and your dad, or you were just about making it and your insurance didn't cover all the damage, all the needless destruction, so you just lost your livelihood that provided the means of taking care of your family. Violence comes in many forms, and perhaps your negation of this type of violence is a reflection on your lack of character, and not mine.
I agree with Jon. The idea that you can't damage property in the fight against fascism, enemy of the people and the most dangerous force in the world, is frankly ludicrous. Anyway, most property damage in protests is directed against violent police or violent capitalists. So it's fine by me. More than fine in fact.
Look, both of you seem to have an issue that endorses violence in one form or another. I don't!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! People have been hurt in these protests as people attacked the property of others like pulling them from cars, to steal them, or inflict damage, etc. No need for a reply. You can rationalize your hate all you want but I'm not buying it so push it elsewhere.
Fran, actually, you do. Fascism is extremely violent on many levels, so if you don't fight it every way you can you are enabling severe violence against not only yourself but others. Property damage is not violence. And physical violence against fascists is mere self-defense. Again, would fighting physically against the SS in Germany (similar to the police in the US) have been morally wrong? Would damaging Nazi infrastructure (property damage) have been wrong? Of course not. If you can't see that then I give up!
You're being vague. If you're talking about those who fought Mussolini, or Hitler, understandable and necessary, but you frame your argument, and the implementation of violence in vague terms, and maybe you are justifying street violence, the kind of violence which was quite prevalent in the streets of this country in recent years. Do I see that as acceptable. NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Antifa is the name of a loose collection of domestic terrorist groups that have a penchant dressing in all black gear, looting and burning businesses, police stations and government buildings (such as Minneapolis in 2020 and the recent attack on “Cop City” in Atlanta), injuring scores of police officers in the process, often in the name of “Black Lives Matter” or “Defunding the Police”.
I'm in favor of all antifascism, "Antifa" included (the right inflates to ridiculous levels the violence antifa uses, which makes me think you belong to the right). Whatever tactics are needed to fight fascism are positive. There is no compromising with it, period. It seems that for you, real fascism (a right wing phenomenon) is benign in comparison with the struggle against it by anti-fascists. It's clear where you stand.
Do you believe in looting and riots, and robbing stores and the destruction of property, even hurting people to make a point? There are many ways to combat fascism without implementing violence. I suspect if it was your property, or the welfare of your family to make their point your perspective would do an about face.
It wouldn't be me that was targeted, believe me. Tell me, should folks have been polite and law-abiding towards Hitler and Mussolini? Or any of a host of other vicious dictators like Pol Pot, Pinochet, Suharto or Marcos or their supporters? Fascism is the ultimate enemy of the people, and it must be fought tooth-and-nail any of a number of ways, some of which may include property damage, yes. Though I'm not at all a fan of physical violence, even it may be called for in certain rare circumstances (or may occur accidentally). It's called diversity of tactics. The fight against fascism is a deadly serious one. It's not for the faint-hearted.
No one could possible disagree that one should stand up to fascism. I could mention a family member way back who was a highly recognized participant in the World Federalist Movement in the US, and stood up to Fascism back home. He didn't engage in violence, since engaging in it would only replicate what you're fighting against. Antifa has engaged in violence and I cannot condone that. When Antifa mixed in with the BLM marches in New York, did you approve their violence, approve their attacking people, vandalizing stores? Who do you think is going to pick up the tab for their destruction?
A purely nonviolent approach to fascism is almost certainly doomed to failure. Again, what would you do in the face of fascism if you were its target? Would you merely turn the other cheek? Just be passive and hope to survive? Or would you fight back with all your might? I hope the latter! Was it good that the Jews just got on the trains to the ovens because fighting back physically would have been impolite? To me property damage concerns should not even be in the discussion when human rights and human life is at stake. If you're concerned about property damage, bill the government that made it necessary. As John Kennedy said "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable".
My problem with your response in dealing with fascism has nothing to do with Hitler, or Mussolini, and many did fight back. WWII. Many people in the countries affected. like Poland, fought back and took on great loses of life. You want to justify the actions of Antifa, so be it.. You have not been specific in defining incidents which you would define as fascistic, and justify the violence you are advocating. .
Violence against women; invasion of women's bodies via banning of abortion; book banning; police killings of black people in cold blood with virtual impunity; millions of deaths caused by invasions and sanctions; the torture of thousands in American prisons; the crime of killing via homelessness and lack of medical, mental health and drug treatment care; wage theft causing impoverishment and suicides; etc, etc, etc. My hand is getting tired. Is that enough for you?
So your heart reaches out to these people, and mine does too, but violence isn't the answer. It contradicts what you claim to care about.
Nope, not in the slightest. Strict nonviolence is the luxury of the comfortable. Black people would laugh in your face, for example, if you told them they should never be violent in the face of state violence. This country wouldn't even be here without violence. Slavery wouldn't have ended without violence. The Axis powers would have prevailed without violence. This fetish for nonviolence is extremely ahistorical and again, is only adopted by people who do not feel a strong alliance with all who are severely oppressed (do they expect those people just to take whatever is thrown their way without defending themselves?), who can afford it because they are white and not extremely poor and are therefore less in danger, or who are in denial about the extreme dangers we all face, like the imminent threat of annihilation from nuclear war and environmental destruction, at the hands of the fascists. Kumbaya alone ain't going to do it.
Look don't take on that self righteous air and preach to me. No one is suggesting not to fight back and sometimes one has to engage in violence, but this discussion started off talking about Antifa and the needless violence implemented by them, of which I do not approve. No more then I approve of needless violence implemented by the police, nor do I approve of spousal, or child abuse, but change is possible without it. Martin Luther King is a good example of that. You'll never convince me, so why bother. Violence begets more violence as they say. The end.
Let's see if you would adopt that attitude if it was your dad, or your store, and it was vandalized. It's windows broken, it's door smashed in, it's merchandise stolen and your dad, or you were just about making it and your insurance didn't cover all the damage, all the needless destruction, so you just lost your livelihood that provided the means of taking care of your family. Violence comes in many forms, and perhaps your negation of this type of violence is a reflection on your lack of character, and not mine.
I agree with Jon. The idea that you can't damage property in the fight against fascism, enemy of the people and the most dangerous force in the world, is frankly ludicrous. Anyway, most property damage in protests is directed against violent police or violent capitalists. So it's fine by me. More than fine in fact.
Look, both of you seem to have an issue that endorses violence in one form or another. I don't!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! People have been hurt in these protests as people attacked the property of others like pulling them from cars, to steal them, or inflict damage, etc. No need for a reply. You can rationalize your hate all you want but I'm not buying it so push it elsewhere.
Fran, actually, you do. Fascism is extremely violent on many levels, so if you don't fight it every way you can you are enabling severe violence against not only yourself but others. Property damage is not violence. And physical violence against fascists is mere self-defense. Again, would fighting physically against the SS in Germany (similar to the police in the US) have been morally wrong? Would damaging Nazi infrastructure (property damage) have been wrong? Of course not. If you can't see that then I give up!
You're being vague. If you're talking about those who fought Mussolini, or Hitler, understandable and necessary, but you frame your argument, and the implementation of violence in vague terms, and maybe you are justifying street violence, the kind of violence which was quite prevalent in the streets of this country in recent years. Do I see that as acceptable. NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!