I suppose you think those of us here that identify somewhere along the left-libertarian line are silly as well?
I find both extremes of the libertarian ‘line’ to be equally silly. There’s plenty of room for reasonable discussion around the middle though.
Most anarchists are pacifists, silly.
If they’re pacifists then I wouldn’t have a problem with them (other than friendly disagreement), the ones we’re talking about here obviously aren’t pacifists though.
Care to expound further on what qualifies as “dumb shit”? Is it democracy? Equality? Free association? Empowerment of individuals and communities to control their own affairs? Living within our means as a species, and the equitable distribution of necessities for survival?
no, none of those things. just what they think constitutes the means of achieving them, and probably some definitional differences as well (e.g. what exactly constitutes ‘equitable’).
And what might those means be? Probably some definitional differences, but you don’t know? Perhaps reading and studying could clear that up. But if you don’t know, how can you say any of it is silly, or for that matter if those definitions might actually line up with your own?
I’ll give you a start
From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
No, most of the ones we’re talking about here are pacifists, as well. First, most of us do not consider property destruction to be inherently violent, or more specifically that violence is interpersonal harm. Many of us consider what folks like Milo and Coulter have to say however as nakedly violent. While they may carefully parse their speech so that specific violence is not mentioned, the ideology itself requires violence to enact. Should we take them at their word, and protest that violence, and defend our communities? Or would you prefer that we wait and see how things shake out, while our community lives in fear because a fascist has every right to march past their homes and denounce their right to exist, with no repercussion?
While the various brawls between fascists and their sympathizers and anti-fascists are regrettable, in light of the above what should we do? We’re talking about genocidal provocation here, not income tax, regulation, or gun ownership. You wouldn’t let a vampire walk through your front door, no matter how gracious and accommodating you might be.
Why is the middle the only reasonable space? This seems to say more about your own comfort than it does about any specific values. Shouldn’t theory be judged on its merits and faults, not it’s location in a spectrum?
Fascists want to committee acts of genocide as a matter of course. Many modern white power groups will attack people, and LYNCH them when given the chance. Same with ISIS. Most anarchists aren’t going to actually attack people unless in a situation where they are in a direct confrontation, like in this case. Property destruction is on the menu, and much of that gets covered by insurance.
[quote=“emo_pinata, post:92, topic:99192”]
It has actually enabled the fascists in charge of the executive branch to name all protesters as enemies of the state, and he doesn’t have the support to act on it but he certainly would.
[/quote]The next line is the important one.
Most of those were over 100 years ago. A lot of history has passed since then, in case you haven’t noticed!
And property damage isn’t the same thing as violence against people, something which the hard right regularly engages in when possible (over and above the occasional scuffle with left wingers). Also, how often are violent acts attributed to anti-fascists/anarchists actually perpetrated by infiltrators sent in by law enforcement, another long standing tactic.
While I don’t disagree with you, one of the recent issues noted is that both sides now claim to suffer from this tactic, which is unfortunate as it’s now yet one more topic for which fact-based discussion is rapidly becoming impossible.
We had the same debates over reality in the 1920s and 1930s, too, along the same political and cultural lines. We saw how that turned out.
I don’t think that equating fascism in any form with the left works or is fair. Fascism has a problem living within and along with other ideologies and frameworks. It demands total obedience and mindshare from those living within it, whether they are fascists or not. While this was once true of anarchism and other more leftwing ideologies, they have proven more adaptable to multi-party systems (at least those more closely aligned with socialism). But it also tends to collapse in on itself, because it’s not nearly as adaptable as leftwing ideologies. And note I do think that the majority of communist states during the 20th century were less like an ideal of socialism and more like the use of socialism by an authoritarian state. At least that’s my own reading of the history of modern era. YMMV, naturally.
I will say, for myself, it’s true that I don’t feel like I can live within a system that denies me or others basic human rights. Fascism is fundamentally about denying people rights and expecting their complete obedience. Not all conservatives belief in fascism, but it worries me that they are wiling to open their arms to fascists at all.
Some of these are just logic exercises. Anarchists are pacifists. Thus, the people filmed committing violence could not possibly be Anarchists. It had to have been infiltrators or agents provocateur. But “bike lock guy” at Berkeley, as one easy example, is certainly a true believer. But they have plenty of facebook pages, websites, subreddits, etc. Where they state their intentions and discuss tactics and make plans. Or they could all be plants, living for years with a full time undercover persona, which they maintain flawlessly.
Anything is possible. Back when the KKK was being broken up, I remember thinking that eventually they are going to have a KKK rally where everyone who shows up will turn out to be a plant from different law enforcement agencies.
Property damage is not violence. ( But- “Violence”- Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. via OED) Also, some of the people making this argument are willing to define violence very loosely when it suits them. For instance, I once heard a person refer to a statue that had been in place for over a century as “an act of violence”. Property damage is not the same as assault, but they are both in the spectrum of violence. I know you did not make this exact argument, but someone else in this thread did, and it is commonly made.
If you and I are having a discussion, and someone sneaks up from the side and hits me over the head with a bike lock, has that person committed an act of violence? What if someone sneaks up and sprays mace in your face?
But anyway, I was only responding to the preposterous claim that most anarchists are pacifists.
Lots of people and organizations have a history of violence. Pointing out that Anarchists have often been violent does not exclude or excuse violence by the state or anyone else.
Islamic governments, sects, and individuals have also sometimes been associated with violence.
They seem to be pretty creative with it lately. But that has no relevance to what Anarchists have done or are doing.
The organizers behind the last Berkeley march openly bragged that collaboration with police enabled their presence. Bear in mind that the majority of these ‘marchers’ were not from Berkeley.
Antifa are just an excuse, they have been looking for a way to justify violence against the left. See the shooting of the wobbly who was breaking up fights in Seattle as an example.
What will be the chances that they will target people for being trans or brown, rather than for being antifa? My guess is 100% that they will do so as a group tactic, not as isolated individuals.
