"Street fight: A new wave of political violence"

[_Dr. Shades]

Dear beastie:

Please remember: When Fascism/Nazism rose to power, nobody knew what it was ultimately capable of. Now that everyone knows its end result, it's extremely unlikely to gain any ground beyond a few street protests. In other words, thanks to hindsight being 20/20, we here in the 2010s are immune to what people were unknowingly susceptible to in the 1930s.

So, pre-emptively violent, anti-1st Amendment Antifa isn't necessary.

[_The CCC]

Certainly it is difficult to quantify "antifa' when it is a loosely organized structure at best.

However, I think it is fair to say that being willing to use violence is one of the foundational principles of antifa. They view preemptive violence as a form of self defense against (what they see as) the inevitable violence of fascism.

I think it's a serious moral conundrum, unlike some other posters here who view it as clearly back and white.

For example: if antifa had existed prior to Hitler, and one of their members had succeeded in assassinating Hitler before his rise to power and had thereby spared the lives of millions, would that have been a morally justifiable act?

Not quite as stark as asking whether it would be morally justified to kill baby Hitler, but along that same trajectory.

We don't have time machines. Thank goodness. Too many paradoxes. However Hitler was not the only one responsible for the rise of fascism. The genesis of the corporate state goes back many generations to at least the time of mercantilism of the late Middle Ages. It gets more complicated with Germany of the 1930's, but I believe the terrible treatment of Germany after WW1 was a major factor.

[_Maksutov]

Antifa discussed.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-i ... index.html

Antifa positions can be hard to define, but many members support oppressed populations and protest the amassing of wealth by corporations and elites. Some employ radical or militant tactics to get their message across.

Scott Crow, a former Antifa organizer, says the "radical ideals" promoted by Antifas are starting to be adopted by liberals. "They would never have looked at (those ideals) before, because they saw us as the enemy as much as the right-wingers."

[_beastie]

Dear beastie:

Please remember: When Fascism/Nazism rose to power, nobody knew what it was ultimately capable of. Now that everyone knows its end result, it's extremely unlikely to gain any ground beyond a few street protests. In other words, thanks to hindsight being 20/20, we here in the 2010s are immune to what people were unknowingly susceptible to in the 1930s.

So, pre-emptively violent, anti-1st Amendment Antifa isn't necessary.

I wish I could trust this to be true.

I think our world is particularly vulnerable to fascism right now due to the strain of increased immigration (which will only escalate due not only to world-wide instability but global warming)

Human beings tend not to learn lessons well from the past.

[_beastie]

Antifa discussed.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-i ... index.html

Antifa positions can be hard to define, but many members support oppressed populations and protest the amassing of wealth by corporations and elites. Some employ radical or militant tactics to get their message across.

Scott Crow, a former Antifa organizer, says the "radical ideals" promoted by Antifas are starting to be adopted by liberals. "They would never have looked at (those ideals) before, because they saw us as the enemy as much as the right-wingers."

I do agree with elements of their platform. I think that racism is still deeply embedded in the institutions of the US, for example, and elites certainly do control economics that disadvantage the poor.

So I'm sympathetic to their insistence that this fight must go to the streets, because we can't depend on civil goverment to do the job, as it has failed for decades.

OTOH, civil government does slowly make progress. And I don't want rioting in the streets. And the violence of antifa does discourage support in the wider public.

What a frustrating situation.

[_subgenius]

Antifa discussed.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-i ... index.html

Antifa positions can be hard to define, but many members support oppressed populations and protest the amassing of wealth by corporations and elites. Some employ radical or militant tactics to get their message across.

Scott Crow, a former Antifa organizer, says the "radical ideals" promoted by Antifas are starting to be adopted by liberals. "They would never have looked at (those ideals) before, because they saw us as the enemy as much as the right-wingers."

I do agree with elements of their platform. I think that racism is still deeply embedded in the institutions of the US, for example, and elites certainly do control economics that disadvantage the poor.

So I'm sympathetic to their insistence that this fight must go to the streets, because we can't depend on civil goverment to do the job, as it has failed for decades.

OTOH, civil government does slowly make progress. And I don't want rioting in the streets. And the violence of antifa does discourage support in the wider public.

What a frustrating situation.

History has consistently taught us that nothing changes without blood in the streets.

[_beastie]

History has consistently taught us that nothing changes without blood in the streets.

I think that's an oversimplification.

Liberal democracies change hands all the time without blood in the streets.

And, as difficult and unusual as it is, there have been pacifist movements in the past that have resulted in tremendous change.

[_moksha]

Everyone knows those Alt-Righters are just a bunch of fun loving guys who sing patriotic songs while drinking steins of Weihenstephaner Hefeweissbier before a good putsch.

And good ole boys drinking whiskey and rye
Singin' this'll be the day that I die
This'll be the day that I die

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I do agree with elements of their platform. I think that racism is still deeply embedded in the institutions of the US, for example, and elites certainly do control economics that disadvantage the poor.

So I'm sympathetic to their insistence that this fight must go to the streets, because we can't depend on civil goverment to do the job, as it has failed for decades.

On the other hand, civil government does slowly make progress. And I don't want rioting in the streets. And the violence of antifa does discourage support in the wider public.

What a frustrating situation.

I think you, as a White person, just need to go away and be quiet:

https://youtu.be/3i6J2fcrKi8?t=82

- Doc

[_subgenius]

History has consistently taught us that nothing changes without blood in the streets.

I think that's an oversimplification.

think what you want, it is accurate.

Liberal democracies change hands all the time without blood in the streets.

No, not all the time and the point is about change not transfer.

And, as difficult and unusual as it is, there have been pacifist movements in the past that have resulted in tremendous change.

Nope, even the most famous of "pacifist movements" that resulted in change had violence in the streets.....and arguing the exception instead of the rule is irrelevant...."consistently" history teaches us that any real change in any society occurs in the wake of bloodshed. Is this a difficult reality to accept? Should this not be the course of social evolution?....i get a sense that you find this concept difficult to accept...por que?