Your words not mine. Thanks but I can speak for myself.
- Fascists advocate violence against ethnic and religious minorities, LGBT people, feminists, progressives, people who believe in germ theory, etc.
- Antifa advocates violence against fascists.
So you can get right out of here with that false equivalency.
16 Likes
My issues are not with their advocacy, it’s with their actions. Beating up people you dissagree with to shut them up is fascism 101.
Punching someone you erroneously believed to be a Nazi, while bad, is still not morally equivalent to punching someone you erroneously believed to be Jewish/LGBT/minority/etc.
8 Likes
You cropped the frame of the cartoon where the guy with the microphone took off his KKK robe and swastika flag.
10 Likes
No. just, no. that’s a myth, and a transparent one at that. It was the center-right conservatives, and the monarchists, and the non-Nazi nationalists, and the petty bourgeoisie who aligned themselves with Hitler, whom they saw as a useful and popular tribune for their own agenda, if maybe a bit uncouth. The German communists of the 1930ies were the most dedicated fighters against the rising Nazis. To officially abolish democracy, the Nazis had to arrest and drive into hiding the communist delegates to the Reichstag, otherwise they would have not found a majority. The social democrats, who had a sizeable paramilitary force of their own, completely gave up at that point, and their leadership was murdered, arrested and exiled in the following weeks and months. Needless to say, bourgeois history doesn’t like to be reminded of their complicity with Nazism, and has therefore promoted the revisionist tale according to which the Nazis seized power because the poor “anti fascist” bourgeoisie was distracted by the communists. What a load of nonsense that is.
Hitler in 1933, the banner says “Marxism must die”.
This is Hitler immediately after being elected (ETA: appointed) Chancellor of the Reich. The guy he’s talking to is not a communist, it is his vice-chancellor, the conservative von Papen.
This is the so called Day of Potsdam in 1933, walking next to Hitler is not a communist, but again, the conservative von Papen.
This is the same event, the guy with the felt head is not a communist, it is Prince William of Prussia.
This is Hitler on May 1st, 1933, formerly the International Worker’s day of socialist and communist tradition, in that year, appropriated with tremendous success by the Nazis. The guy on the left is not a communist, it’s the far right, monarchist icon, and butcher of WW1 infamy, Hindenburg, ETA: who appointed Hitler as chancellor in the first place.
10 Likes
The people who continue insisting “The Nazis were fighting for Socialism, it’s right there in their name!” are going to be in for a rude awakening if they ever visit the Democratic Republic of the Congo or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
15 Likes
You believe that punching someone by mistake is less morally reprehensible the specifically punching someone you correctly identified as a minority? Based on what concept of morality? This distinction is the most fascinating thing I have heard on this thread.
Yes. Just as I believe that shooting someone you mistook for an intruder, while Very Bad, is still less morally reprehensible than actively hunting down Jews.
16 Likes
“Fascism is bad” is a “sordid belief” now?
If there’s anything to criticize Antifa over then it’s their methods, not their beliefs.
15 Likes
Sorry bud, but I am not daft. I do not believe for a second that Hitler was fighting for socialism, despite their name. Specially since the name was specifically chosen, against Hitler’s wishes as a means to sucker the socialists that made up a huge part of the Sturmabteilung.
The party’s executive committee added “Socialist” to the name over Hitler’s objections, to help the party appeal to left-wing workers.[5]
They where just the most useful idiots
Many of these stormtroopers believed in the socialist promise of National Socialism. They expected the Nazi regime to take more radical economic action, such as breaking up the vast landed estates of the aristocracy, once they obtained national power.[19] By the time Hitler assumed power in January 1933, SA membership had increased to approximately 2,000,000—twenty times as large as the number of troops and officers in the Reichswehr (German Army).[20]
That is until the night of the long knives when Hitler murdered the socialist leader of the brownshirts Röhm and the rest of his power command:
Many SA “storm troopers” had working-class origins and longed for a radical transformation of German society.[41] They were disappointed by the new regime’s lack of socialistic direction and its failure to provide the lavish patronage they had expected.[42] Furthermore, Röhm and his SA colleagues thought of their force as the core of the future German Army, and saw themselves as replacing the Reichswehr and its established professional officer corps.[43]
And you make this destinction to say that the antifa thugs are slightly better than the nazi thugs?
I think you misunderstood me. In no way do I believe the Nazis where fighting for socialism, I said they tricked and used the socialists inside the brownshirts to gain power. They manipulated them to do their dirty work. This is established history here, you being German might have some deeper insight though I gather so I am certainly open to hear what you where taught on that subject.
Many of these stormtroopers believed in the socialist promise of National Socialism. They expected the Nazi regime to take more radical economic action, such as breaking up the vast landed estates of the aristocracy, once they obtained national power.[19] )
Even before the Night of the Long Knifes, the SA’s so called socialism was a highly peculiar one, that substituted race for class. But what even is socialism without class? Barely more than a mockery of the concept. Empowerment of the workers traded for the master race begging for some boons, or beating other people over the head to get them.
5 Likes
Some modern identitarian and ultra-nationalist movements in Europe are the same way: supporting the social welfrare programmes to which residents have rightly become accustomed, but only for the ethnically “pure”.
In that way they end up being less progressive than the society-denying “free” market fundies who disingenuously (to an absurd and transparent degree) try to lump them in with those calling for socialism for all stakeholders in the nation-state. It’s the same false equivalency BS that AynCap HS debate club nerds always think they can get past people.
11 Likes
And the people that support that are fooling themselves into thinking, well, we’ll just deny the immigrants, that can’t happen to me, don’t understand that rights that can be taken away from the other can be taken away from them, too.
We all rise or fall together. Especially now.
13 Likes
