Chomsky on antifa

Ugh... Not sure why anyone still thinks Chomsky has any relevance to current expressions of radicalism. He's proved how out of touch he is year after year with his various endorsements of electoralism, his refusal to acknowledge the responsibility of academia in general and MIT in particular as part of the militarized state, and now this full-on bourgeois-liberal condemnation of direct action.

Not sure why anyone still thinks Chomsky has any relevance to current expressions of radicalism. He's proved how out of touch he is year after year with his various endorsements of electoralism, his refusal to acknowledge the responsibility of academia in general and MIT in particular as part of the militarized state, and now this full-on bourgeois-liberal condemnation of direct action.

Do you think so? When we consider the popularity of his articles, interviews, books, and videos it seems he has an audience and what's more, it is a youthful audience of people seeking education. He out-surpasses in reaching a much wider element of our class than those on this forum do, so out of touch is certainly not one criticism I would present.

I think we all have issues with Chomsky, and very rightly so, but i certainly wouldn't deny him the influence he has.

I do have issues With Antifa in the past, mostly tactical.

I think that in general the big problem right now is Capitalism, neo-liberalism, the dismantling of the social-democracies, the constant pilaging of the Third world, wars, and so on. Not really white nationalists.

However at this point white nationalism is starting to become much larger, and mroe Dangerous and at least when it comes to Things like Charlottesville, Thank goodness Antifa were there.

In general however I do agree With him, I don't agree With the no-platforming tactics and so on. I also think that often the large Counter protests against 10 idiots in white Hoods ends up being Counter productive.

But it's not black and white.

ajjonstone

When we consider the popularity of his articles, interviews, books, and videos it seems he has an audience and what's more, it is a youthful audience of people seeking education. He out-surpasses in reaching a much wider element of our class than those on this forum do, so out of touch is certainly not one criticism I would present.

I think we all have issues with Chomsky, and very rightly so, but i certainly wouldn't deny him the influence he has.

Media influence, popularity and exposure aren't the same as having any 'in-touch' theoretical relevance to present issues. The content of Chomsky's politics are even more reformist and out of touch than ever. But then he's a professional talking head so no surprise he would privilege the producing of more words and his audience consuming them over any other form of engagement with reality - apart from voting Democrat.

zug

Anyone care to respond to any of the arguments he makes here, about the Weather Underground?

Little better than a smear. Comparing those defending themselves on the streets and where they live against fascist invasion with a clandestine group planting bombs against state and economic institutions is ridiculous - suggesting a simplistic lumping together to imply all who don't rule out some necessary use of physical defence & resistance as equivalent with terrorist tactics. Who does it serve to get that message out to his 'wide audience'? The anti-fa issue seems to have confirmed how out of touch US academic leftism is with anything but itself, its adoring audience and its abstract reformism; http://libcom.org/blog/do-marxian-academics-dream-affluent-larpers-17082017

Ayyyyyy

The dude is right. Reducing 'antifascism' to a set of rudderless tactics centered on street confrontations by left activists is a major gift to the right. Just like going public with your workplace committee too soon is a major gift to the boss.

Antifascism is a set of policies workers take up in self defense. It's not some special recruiting tool of left activists or some special provenance of a tiny group of martyrs or heros.

Without a base in the class, antifa can only be squad v squad (even if you slap the label 'mass' on front and do picket trainings. You're just beefing up your squads a bit). Only people more interested in stroking their own egos would have the gall to turn a defeat into a win; only people who care less about the cause for socialism and the abolition of classes would look at the tit for tat between antifa and these tiny fascist groups and say "we're saving the world".

Pennoid

Without a base in the class, antifa can only be squad v squad (even if you slap the label 'mass' on front and do picket trainings. You're just beefing up your squads a bit). Only people more interested in stroking their own egos would have the gall to turn a defeat into a win; only people who care less about the cause for socialism and the abolition of classes would look at the tit for tat between antifa and these tiny fascist groups and say "we're saving the world".

You have a choice, oppose fascists when they are tiny and weak or oppose fascists when they are an imminent threat to your personal safety. Choosing the latter is a bad choice.

Pennoid

Ayyyyyy

The dude is right. Reducing 'antifascism' to a set of rudderless tactics centered on street confrontations by left activists is a major gift to the right. Just like going public with your workplace committee too soon is a major gift to the boss.

Antifascism is a set of policies workers take up in self defense. It's not some special recruiting tool of left activists or some special provenance of a tiny group of martyrs or heros.

Without a base in the class, antifa can only be squad v squad (even if you slap the label 'mass' on front and do picket trainings. You're just beefing up your squads a bit). Only people more interested in stroking their own egos would have the gall to turn a defeat into a win; only people who care less about the cause for socialism and the abolition of classes would look at the tit for tat between antifa and these tiny fascist groups and say "we're saving the world".

Keep your head buried in the sand if that's your "comfort zone."

I think pennoid is being a bit generous with interpreting what Chomsky is saying, but they are basically correct with what they say. I thought it was pretty much conventional wisdom among veteran anti-fascists that tit for tat street confrontations or counter-rallies isn't sufficient to beat back the far right and that one can only organize their base into a class movement that provides an alternative to the far right and neoliberal politicians. Indeed, I thought that organizations such as the Independent Working Class Association and even the resurgence of the IWW's General Defense Committee were primarily based on this outlook.

The IWCA was setup because the largest British fascist party were beaten off the streets. Recognising they couldn't hold public marches or events they started campaigning in local elections. They could leaflet unannounced, go door to door on predominantly white estates and hold stalls, all reducing the risk of anti-fascist violence. It was the success of street confrontations which forced the BNP to make that strategy change, the IWCA followed.

I stick with what I said. In UK, they were beat off the street, but arguably they have remained a significant, if minority political presence. BNP, EDL, UKIP, whatever will come next. Street confrontations were a success in ejecting the far right off the corners and gathering in neighborhoods. They were not a success in preventing the far right from shifting debate on some key issues and getting some policy adopted/co-opted.

I'm not sticking my head in the sand comrades. I agree that you have to fight fascists. But tit for tat street demos don't work. I'm not going to stop leftists from doing it, though I will argue for a more effective course. I certainly don't think it's immoral in the abstract to punch a Nazi.

I think Juan is right, and I thought it was understood that you fight fascism by first building a base. I think I differ from Juan a bit because while M1 advance a 'critique' (however shallow) of squd v squad, they don't actually pose a viable alternative.

If I understand their strategy correctly, it's actually quite reprehensible on it's own. Their strategy is to 'involve the broadest layers' of the working class (spontaneously) into the fight against fascism in a public capacity of the I.W.W. This is the political/antifascist equivalent of dragging the union into a fight it isn't prepared to wage or win, on the basis of the decision of an extreme minority of the organization (Locals of the GDC, or even the whole GDC itself a subcommittee of the union, although this strategy originates in a particular spot).

This reflects a more general anti-democratic; federalist bent in the IWW as a result of GMBs. I don't know what you call small sub-bodies of an organization making organization-wide decisions without accountability to the general membership or the explicit mandate of the majority, but it isn't democracy. Some call it "autonomy" but I think unaccountability is the functional expression.

The central principles and facts of the case as I see it are:

1) Self defense in general means minimizing net or absolute losses (however defined).
2) The working class is distinct from left activists
3) There are places where self-defense or fighting for a democratic right (in a local way) are necessary to advance a union organizing drive; there is no case where the working class wins a democratic right (in a national or global sense) or successfully defends itself without union organization. This fact imparts a prioritization.

If these are true, then it implies that the priority is to build a base in the working class through membership institutions they govern that fight for socialism and (directly related) their own self-defense (antifascism). It's also true that public facing counter demos may in many cases not minimize losses either net or absolute. In some cases they may, in others they may not, depending on the organizations and individuals involved.

Left-activist antifascism may strike a chord in a particular context and lead to *some* recruitment on the basis of people happening to be antifascist already; but the vehicle for doing so in our context isn't going to stop these fascists groups. As far as I can tell, the "mass antifascism" pointed out by M1 is essentially aspirational with no course toward getting there, outside counter demos. They make overtures to union organization, but argue for changes in the IWW which will encourage antifascist action at the expense of fixing the failed union organizing model in the IWW (which they see as perfect; excepting the existence of the the CSD model which must augment it).

Actually, like chomsky, I think their current tactics (And raising them to absolute principle) feed into the aims of the right. Most of the bosses' press express opposition to fascism. Most of the city and state governments are recalcitrant to grant permits already (having been pressured not to). But the result is that the fascists get to have their "free speech fights" as a basis of recruitment. The results of these 'mass antifa' counter demos is just a 'massification' of the tit for tat, not an actual alternative.

One result is the IWW is increasingly targeted across the country by cowardly acts of intimidation and threats. And what was the knockout blow we traded for this? To hit the fascists right where Bannon, et. al. wanted us to:

The longer Democrats "talk about identity politics, I got 'em," Bannon said. "I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats."

Bannon

The CSD argues that we should appeal to the 'broad layers of antifascists as antifascists' (rather than workers; e.g. as liberals etc.) in the act of "mass antifiascism" (public counter rallies). The result isn't actual defense but escalating exposure to violence and those among us critical of this lack of strategy are labeled as reactionaries.

The central defense offered in the IWW for this lack of strategy has been that it is morally justified for the oppressed to fight nazis. That's not a response to a critique of tactics or strategy. That's shoring up your own lack of tactic or strategy by recourse to an argument you're used to winning. I agree fascist deserve to get slugged. That's a premise of the discussion we can have about tactics and strategy.

But by moving the discussion there, people can get out of the terrain of difficult questions, and onto the the terrain of us v. them and purges. The result is to shut down debate and whittle discussion down to naught but self-assurance that you're morally justifiable no matter the metric. It's pretty destructive. It often takes the form of claiming that people who raise these concerns are "white workerists" or some other reprehensible identity category or category of 'oppressor'. This way, criticism can be discarded out of hand.

The final result is that Bannon and Trump can hide their ethno-nationalism in economic nationalism (sounds kinda like a certain right wing politician during the 50s/60s) and keep the ethno-nationalist base while formally condemning the ethno-portion of it's nationalism. And they will trounce the left so long as they obviate class politics and organizing;in a word any sort of collective strategy, to instead chase rightist rallies where they pop up.

I think there's a chance we're all talking at cross purposes here. Ultimately we need to be building working class power, not going on counter-protests to Nazis. But while trying to build working class power we may sometimes need to be involved in physical confrontations with Nazis, to keep them weak and to ensure they don't become strong enough to attack us.

Black Badger

...his refusal to acknowledge the responsibility of academia in general and MIT in particular as part of the militarized state, and now this full-on bourgeois-liberal condemnation of direct action.

What are you talking about? He literally has discussed this a dozen times. Pick any of his lectures on Youtube at random and you’re likely to hear him make a comment on how the MIT and many other leading universities were simply working on behalf of the military. And I would bet money on the fact that this is also mentioned in Understanding Power

Sorry, Spiff. I should have said how he refuses to accept any personal complicity in that trajectory...

he refuses to accept any personal complicity in that trajectory...

What personal complicity is it you mean?
What actual actions (or non-actions) has NC committed to being an accomplice of the ruling class but in particular those sections you cite, the MIT?

No doubt, many of us have been employees of dubious businesses or government (local or national) departments of which we have no control over policies so does that mean we are now all personally guilty of complicity for what is done by them?
What should we have done to escape the association with their anti-social practices.
Is a staff member or student at a university complicit in militarism if it runs an OTC or accepts research funding from the military or a arms corporation?
Is NC to be held to a higher standard of individual behaviour than ourselves?

I don't think anyone on this thread is defending NC's "anarchist/socialist" politics but we have to be a bit more precise in our criticisms of him otherwise our critique is simply rejected.

And you don't require to be a "bourgeois-liberal" to question the worth of certain aspects and expressions of workers' resistance and opposition.

The SPGB declined to participate in putting the boot into Mosley's BUF, actually debating with them in the battle of ideas and not the battle of Cable Street and as a consequence suffered the thuggery of the Communist Party "upholders of free speech and democracy".

Can someone comment on the role of 'anarchist' academics/intellectuals in the anarchist movement?

Obviously the revolution needs to be built by working people, and its them who know what tactics work and when they need to defend themselves.

But what's the use of anarchist theorists in this?

Scallywag

Can someone comment on the role of 'anarchist' academics/intellectuals in the anarchist movement?

Obviously the revolution needs to be built by working people, and its them who know what tactics work and when they need to defend themselves.

But what's the use of anarchist theorists in this?

potentially that's an interesting discussion, however on this thread that would be off topic. If you wish to discuss this topic, please start a new thread.

Steven.

potentially that's an interesting discussion, however on this thread that would be off topic. If you wish to discuss this topic, please start a new thread.

Ok I have done, thanks.

https://libcom.org/forums/theory/role-anarchist-theorists-academics-or-intellectuals-anarchist-movement-19082017

Have to agree with Chomsky here. Street Antifa is at best a very short term defense of neighborhoods. More often it bolsters fascism particularly when fascists like Richard Spencer hold press conferences while some Antifa on demos tell the media to F off. The long term consequences of cable street are a myth discussed here
http://www.historytoday.com/daniel-tilles/myth-cable-street

You keep linking that liberal article as if it proves something - for a very different view of Cable St and its consequences see this article by a participant, Joe Jacobs; http://libcom.org/library/battle-cable-st-1936-joe-jacobs

I agree that when it comes to neo-nazis, kkk, etc., it can help if we confront them with a beating, or by shutting down their talks and denying them free speech when we have the power to do so.

My question is, where do we draw the line?

I have been really uncomfortable with where some leftists have drawn that line. Like a video I saw on YouTube of a talk that leftists shut down by constantly chanting and shouting over it. The speaker was expressing shitty right-wing views, but he's no nazi, and is a critic of the alt-right and white-supremacists. Watching that made me cringe. (I can try to dig up the link if people are interested.)

So again: Where do you draw the line? Who is it ok to prevent from exercising free speech? Who is it ok to physically attack?

On the issue of Chomsky and military research at MIT see this comment in the other thread on this topic

Many thanks for the link, herz2.

It certainly offers a lesser-discussed aspect of Chomsky's involvement with the Establishment. As always, we find heroes with feet of clay.

I think I am tentatively with pennoid here. I will openly admit to being somewhat of an armchair anarchist, but this is because it didn't take me very long at all to take issue with what limited things I did get involved in a few years ago.

One such thing was counter demos to right wing/fascist organisations in my local area. I distinctly remember milling around the convening point with a comrade with the mainstream union contingent waiting for our lot to turn up. All of a sudden, masked up and everything, they just trundled off a bus (the bus stop was literal meters away), marched straight past us without acknowledging anyone and within a matter of minutes, walked straight into a kettle. This was before the fascists had even turned up. They didn't move from that spot for the rest of the demo.

Eventually, the fascists turned up via police escort and were kept to the other side of the road, being led past the antifa and then crossed to the other side of the road, right to where they were actually planning to demonstrate (outside a home office immigration centre) where they were then kettled. What followed was something I can only describe as a shouting match for a few hours, whilst members of the public walked past bemused by both parties. The kettles held until both parties were escorted by the police elsewhere separately to disperse.

Me and my comrade thought the whole thing to be intensely surreal and pointless so we tried to spend some time doing something actually productive, so we crossed the road and tried to start conversations with pedestrians about what they thought was going on.

I have no moral qualms with violence towards similar groups, and do see the necessity of a vocal presence on the street to let them know they are not welcome in our communities, but honestly I don't think these shouting matches are the way to go. It's like some antifa actively want to be locked down by the police and have a good old aggressive sing along patting themselves on the back and boosting their radical egos, un aware or un caring of how alienated they are from most ordinary members of the class. There also seems to be the expectation that if you are a bit hesitant to start fights and physical confrontations then you are complicit somehow, which is extremely macho. I personally don't see the value in being so bait about things that you could easily get nicked for having achieved nothing. I get a strong vibe of martyrism.

As much as I am against pacifism, liberalism and trying to gain positive media coverage, stories of local mosques going to their demos and providing them with cakes tend to get a lot more of a positive response from non leftists than antifa does. I think writing this off is extremely similar to burying your head in the sand.

I sympathize with the angry, guttural response to a man carrying a swastika flag or wearing a Klan robe, but that's all the more reason not to attend anti-fascist demonstrations. A half century (plus) of collective mythology about the great anti-fascist war and ritual hatred of those symbols overrides one's ability to think. It's an almost Pavlovian response. (Compare to the response to a Che Guevera image or someone calling himself a Maoist.)

The truth is that historically anti-fascism was a more effective nationalist mobilization than fascism. It needed less coercion to achieve the same end: mobilize the whole society for war. The great anti-fascist war remains the most stable national myth in America, Russia, and the UK. Contemporary 'fascists' (to the extent that term makes any sense today) have a paradoxically anti-nationalist element because they deny the national myth of anti-fascism.

The first and governing principle of anti-fascism is the refusal to recognize Bolshevism as fascism (the defense of Russian or American national socialism against German national socialism). Anti-fascism demands a unity of the left against the right - that is, finding common cause with Leninists. Whether or not violent street tactics 'aid the right' (Chomsky's point) is not something I am interested in, but it is not hard to notice a symbiotic relationship between leftist and rightist groups committed to street violence.

lettersjournal

A half century (plus) of collective mythology about the great anti-fascist war and ritual hatred of those symbols overrides one's ability to think.

I must come to your -- partial -- defense. You're not as ignorant as you sound, because it's just your disingenuous passive-agressive shtick. Surely you learned 'rithmatic, so these acts of bad faith override your ability to think through simple mathematic calculations (unless you're still living in the womb of the 1990s; a "half century" ago was 1967 ☮). But as you nihilists believe in nothing, why do you even bother with these sloppy posts?"Are these guys gonna hurt us, Walter?" "No Donny, these men are cowards."

Seems to me that there are two layers of antifascism being conflated in many of these discussions.

Layer One is the most outward (public) manifestation of antifascism as an ideology and a mythology: a black bloc, streetfighers, folks who don't care what your political self-identification may be as long as you're out on the streets trying to shut down any fash* anywhere. In the US, this layer is (self-)identified with the double flag (whether red over black, black over red, both red, both black -- the original design from the KPD-organized Antifaschischtische Aktion [founded 1932]), and often with the triple arrows pointing down to the left (with or without the circle -- the original design from the SPD-organized Eiserne Front [founded 1931]). The adoption of these symbols doesn't necessarily mean that those who sport them know anything about them -- in fact, based on the "half-century plus" history of American anti-intellectualism, I'd venture to guess that a vast majority couldn't even be bothered with finding out. However, to the extent that anyone might know anything about their symbolic antecedents, it's probably safe to say that they are antiparliamentary and most likely have a better than average understanding of the conflicting forces of WWII. As far as any formal and informal organizational trend exists, the tendency toward a lowest-common denominator ideological package certainly exists, and the rationale is the same as any Activist formation: get out there and do stuff! This is the part that remains uninteresting to me, but only insofar as it's Activism (an Activist having the self-understanding of being indispensable to The Struggle). They are the ones who organize and recruit for popular fronts; these folks are easy to make fun on because of their earnestness, their politico-historical ignorance (represented by, among other things, a refusal to critique Leninism), and their cult of self-sacrifice.

Layer Two is the individual level, where my sympathies and personal contacts are. I understand viscerally that the "alt-right" (and others who've had their reactionary and anti-radical bigotry bolstered by Trump's election and belligerent agenda) are a real danger to my safety and that of lots of my friends and allies -- not just symbolically or metaphorically. This part of me remains convinced that direct confrontation (whether though ridicule or smack-downs) is the only effective way to counter this threat. I'm not one to mince words when it comes to denouncing Leninism and Popular Frontism, and my preference would be to work exclusively with non-Leninist antifas, but, at least at this stage of the game, I don't see that as a necessity. My ad hoc allies include anyone with a non-legislative strategy and anyone who embraces horizontal/transparent decision making.

Chomsky's condemnation is around tactics, and he should abide by his own critiques and first, do no harm. By asserting that antifas are enabling or somehow making fascists stronger, he's promoting an explicitly anti-radical position (admittedly, nothing new for him). But this takes place on a different layer than what lettersjournal is talking about.

* I will leave out the problematic, incoherent, and often (internally) contradictory analysis of most antifas concerning their understanding of "fascism"

wow, that aviva quote.....conflating ethical consumerism with antifa, no matter the tactical flaws of what is going on, is so in accurate.

The orientation of the anti-fascist is one of solving societal problems. Solving societal problems means thinking like a state, and so, thinking like a state, the anti-fascist solution to the problem (fascism) is a paramilitary/police solution. Of course, a state (or those attempting to be one) does not solve problems - or, when it does solve problems, it cannot do so without generating unintended consequences. (It's rarely mentioned, but the FBI's COINTELPRO program was used against the KKK in the 60s.)

Black Badger: It is simply not true that anti-fascism is a form of self-defense. In the US, it involves tracking down fascist groups and attacking them. Fascists are hard to find.

What I'm interested in is finding orientations other than that of 'solving societal problems'. And, anyway, problems are usually resolved in the space created by the abandonment of solutions.

lettersjournal

The orientation of the anti-fascist is one of solving societal problems. Solving societal problems means thinking like a state, and so, thinking like a state, the anti-fascist solution to the problem (fascism) is a paramilitary/police solution. Of course, a state (or those attempting to be one) does not solve problems - or, when it does solve problems, it cannot do so without generating unintended consequences. (It's rarely mentioned, but the FBI's COINTELPRO program was used against the KKK in the 60s.)

[...]

What I'm interested in is finding orientations other than that of 'solving societal problems'. And, anyway, problems are usually resolved in the space created by the abandonment of solutions.

More disingenuous alternative facts and fake news from lettersjournal. Who writes your copy? Milo Yiannopolous?

Do you ever get out from under you bed long enough to notice the events of the world? Obviously not! Why don't you get a lettersjournal column in the National Enquirer?

lettersjournal

Black Badger: It is simply not true that anti-fascism is a form of self-defense. In the US, it involves tracking down fascist groups and attacking them. Fascists are hard to find.

Ever heard of Auburn, Berkeley or Charlottesville? This is the most moronic thing you've ever written. Like I said above, you have a bright career ahead should you continue pursuing journalism.

The orientation of the anti-fascist is one of solving societal problems.
It is simply not true that anti-fascism is a form of self-defense. In the US, it involves tracking down fascist groups and attacking them. Fascists are hard to find.

The orientation of the Professional Anti-Fascist Politician is one of solving societal problems. As I said, this is a problem of Activism, and perhaps ideological Anti-Fascism (like Anti-Imperialism), but not a broad, instinctual, antifascism; the latter is what I'm familiar with personally. Your dismissive condemnation is derivative of the critiques of the Popular Front-style of Anti-Fascism -- what might be called Establishment Anti-Fascism, which ossified after 1935 and flourished in the former Soviet Bloc after 1945. I'd wager that upwards of 99% of the folks who frequent this site would be against that too, since it relies on the mythology of various Party Communists -- a slow-moving target. Tankie antifascism is an anachronism and is not reflected in any of the relevant literature being put out by contemporary antifas (which is not to say that the literature is overflowing with incisive analysis -- it most certainly is not, at least not in English).

In the US, at least in months since the last presidential election, the "alt-right" has organized speaking events, rallies, and attacks. Do you not read the news? There's no need for any antifa to track down these creeps -- they travel far and wide and are quite public about their actions and intentions. So, I'm sorry to say that you're being willfully ignorant about this. Standing up to their provocations is 100% self-defense, and most people get that.

"lettersjournal's" comments may be true of the Anti-Fascism of the 1930s and 1940s, but Antifa in 2017 is very much a different kettle of fish from the popular front Anti-Fascism of the previous century and the same is true of modern fascism. Fascism is not an official state ideology these days, I think the situation in Italy during the 60s and 70s is a better historical reference for the present discussion as the fascism of that period, along with the struggle against it, is far more similar to the context we face in the present. Fascists are an extra-parliamentary mass (to varying degrees) movement, which at times has the support of certain sections of the State, and are used by the State in order to exact violent repression against its enemies while allowing such politicians a degree of plausible deniability so as to remain within the political mainstream.

Antifa too is not a State ideology and in reality militant Anti-Fascism has almost no support from progressive capitalists like the US Democratic Party. So referring Antifa as a nationalist ideology more effective than fascism may hold water when we're talking about the world almost a century ago, but in the current context is self-evidently moronic.

All the ultra-leftists who insist on denouncing Antifa as a popular front ideology would do well to put down the Bordiga for a moment and take a look at the world in front of them. Anti-Fascism is less an ideology than it is a strategic perspective based upon the necessity of resisting fascism by any means necessary. Ignoring them or refusing to join Anti-Fascist demonstrations out of the facile insistence that doing so would mean strengthening progressive capitalist factions simply demonstrates lettersjournal's profound ignorance of reality. The Democrats, the Labour Party along with most other socialist or progressive parties have no interest in uniting with working class communists and radicals as part of an Anti-Fascist front, they have no interest in Anti-Fascism full stop, because at this point they aren't at war with a fascist government and they're not in a position where they must unite into a coalition of Anti-Fascist governments in order to resist an existential threat posed by fascist expansionism. That much should be blatantly obvious.

In Italy the militant working class movement fought with fascists out of necessity, because in reality the fascists are the State's armed dogs just like the police, except unlike the police they have no leash. Resisting fascism is just as much a necessity as resisting the State in order to build working class power through class struggle. Beneath lettersjournal's comments seems to lie the deluded belief that if the working class only carries out an economic struggle against their bosses, fascists and other such extra-State forces will simply leave us alone and merely busy themselves with fighting their enemies amongst the bourgeoisie. This is so not true, fascists .from the Nazis to the Brown Shirts to the KKK to the Italian neo-fascists, have historically made it a priority to attack working class militants of all stripes - socialist, communist, anarchist, etc - and they will invariably bring the war to us regardless. This may not worry lettersjournal since like other nihilists he lacks the backbone required to stand behind any movement or set of beliefs and ideals bigger than his/herself. However for me, if I know there is a group of people who are hell-bent on destroying me and my friends, I'm going to at least go down swinging! Or, more preferably, I would prefer to not go down at all... On the other hand the position of the Bordigists like LJ seems to be little different to the turn-the-other-cheekism of liberals like Chomsky.

However for me, if I know there is a group of people who are hell-bent on destroying me and my friends, I'm going to at least go down swinging!

This warlike approach could be applied to lots of enemies. Islamists, for example. Or drug dealers.

If you forgot about the anti-fascist activism and went about your life, it's likely you would henceforth never encounter a single fascist, much less have to defend yourself against one, whereas if you define yourself in opposition to a thing, you cleave yourself to it. (In the same way, if you defined yourself as an anti-Islamist, I'm sure you would find yourself in fights with Islamists.) The handful of right-wing speaking events mentioned here were publicly advertised spectacles that attracted activists and media from around the country. To call what happened at them 'self-defense of working class communities' is a crude propaganda technique.

To continue on the vein of the 'solving societal problems' orientation, it is not a coincidence that fascism is what the media is covering right now. This orientation is always stuck on what is in the news (this week Syria! next week fascists!). All of us face a difficult situation: there are a lot of bad things going on in the world, and there are a lot of forces more powerful than us trying to grab our attention and recruit us for this or that enthusiasm. Why this enthusiasm instead of that one? Why try to solve this problem instead of that? Why fight these bad guys instead of those bad guys? Once you go down the road of solving particular problems (fascism, air pollution, whatever), you end up thinking like a state. What makes radical ideas beautiful is that they are useless.

A heuristic: if my enthusiasms are also promoted by journalists and activists and politicians, I'm a sucker. Sure, I am earnest in these enthusiasms and sure of their authenticity - that's what makes me a sucker. 'Self-defense' is the rationale for every war. Don't go to war. Don't be a sucker.

A longer meditation: https://insipidities.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-dumping-of-set-of-87-unsent-tweets.html

Let's suppose our situation today were a replay of Italy in the 60s and 70s or Germany in the 30s and 40s. Why in the world would we choose to play the same move that was played then? Why reflect on those periods and then do anti-fascism again, knowing how it worked out?

To continue on the vein of the 'solving societal problems' orientation, it is not a coincidence that fascism is what the media is covering right now. This orientation is always stuck on what is in the news (this week Syria! next week fascists!). All of us face a difficult situation: there are a lot of bad things going on in the world, and there are a lot of forces more powerful than us trying to grab our attention and recruit us for this or that enthusiasm. Why this enthusiasm instead of that one? Why try to solve this problem instead of that? Why fight these bad guys instead of those bad guys? Once you go down the road of solving particular problems (fascism, air pollution, whatever), you end up thinking like a state. What makes radical ideas beautiful is that they are useless.

Tell this to grieving family members and friends who just lost a loved one to a racist or fascist lynching. It sure must be great to live in a world of pure abstractions, where nothing is connected to reality.

lettersjournal

If you forgot about the anti-fascist activism and went about your life, it's likely you would henceforth never encounter a single fascist, much less have to defend yourself against one, whereas if you define yourself in opposition to a thing, you cleave yourself to it. (In the same way, if you defined yourself as an anti-Islamist, I'm sure you would find yourself in fights with Islamists.)

What if part of your life involves, I don't know, being a practicing muslim for instance. Or an openly trans person? Or, god forbid, being black. For those with less privilege than the copious amounts you obviously have, as evidenced by your abstract nonsense, you might find their experiences differ.

So lettersjournal, are you saying that if we just ignore the fascist movement completely, this new and cutting-edge strategy of your's will result in an inevitable collapse of the fascist movement? Do you think that, if only the German working class realised this profound wisdom 100 years ago, the Holocaust might never have happened and Hitler may never have even taken power?

... A ludicrous argument. The major lessons to take from the early resistance to fascism is that 1) we will have to out match them in zeal and brutality 2) when fascist politicians advocate genocidal violence and expansionist war we should take them at their word 3) the working class movement should aim to crush fascism in its infancy, before any of us get faced with such terrible decisions as whether to ally with our enemies in a popular front or whether to passively face fascist annihilation. Because in reference to number 3, communists and anarchists didn't suddenly ally with the bourgeoisie because they just forgot about the class war out of the blue, they did it because once fascists had taken power in Europe they had to decide between two equally poor choices - whether to fight alongside our enemies of yesterday and potentially live or whether to fight alone/not at all and passively go to their deaths. This is the point which gets left out of many Bordigist influenced critiques of Anti-Fascism and although I think the popular front policy was still a mistake it is firstly not an inherent part of Anti-Fascism and secondly it was based upon the brutal necessities of the period.

In reference to number 2, quite a large number of people of many political persuasions considered Hitler to be little more than a crazy windbag, who used anti-semitism and ultra-nationalism in a cynical way for the sake of seizing power. How tragically wrong they were!

If we don't want to be put in a situation where we must choose between death and collaboration with our enemies we should crush the neo-fascist movement while it is small and weak, and we should keep our collective boot on the movement's collective throat until capitalism is finally destroyed and the material basis for fascism has been removed for good.

I also think its worth adding that I don't think fighting alongside Marxist-Leninists counts as a class collaborationist 'popular front', since at this point Marxist Leninists are not a part of the ruling class (much to their annoyance I'm guessing). Until Antifa partisans seriously suggest allying with the US Democratic Party or the Labour Party in UK and NZ (my country of origin), can we drop the allegation of popular frontism? Can we deal with the Anti-Fascist movement that actually exists? Thanks.

lettersjournal

If you forgot about the anti-fascist activism and went about your life, it's likely you would henceforth never encounter a single fascist, much less have to defend yourself against one, whereas if you define yourself in opposition to a thing, you cleave yourself to it.

You what, so what about when they tried to burn our squat down three times then. And racist attacks are definitely a worse danger.

All of us face a difficult situation: there are a lot of bad things going on in the world, and there are a lot of forces more powerful than us trying to grab our attention and recruit us for this or that enthusiasm. Why this enthusiasm instead of that one?

Because fascism is a political movement which explicitely aims at crushing the workers' movement, trade unions, socialists, communists, anarchists and so forth as well as undermining working class solidarity by attacking migrants, blacks, Muslims, Catholics, Jews and so on. They are fundamentally more dangerous than any drug dealer. Their success comes at the direct expense of our communities, our aspirations, our needs and desires and our movement. They are not our only enemy, not by a long shot, but they are still an enemy who is totally clear about their desire to crush everything we stand for...

And they are gathering momentum and influence, at least in the US and Europe. If we fail to crush them while they are still small and weak we may face annihilation at their hands at some point in the future. Fascists are more than just a social ill, they aspire to be our executioners and make no secret of this fact. Its possible that if we just ignore them their movement will whither up and die, sure its possible. But thats not a strategy, thats just burying your head in the sand and counting on blind luck to keep you safe. Given what is at stake I think it would be a profound blunder to leave our fate and theirs up to luck.

Yeah, we have to hunt them down... smh

http://blackrosefed.org/proud-boy-storm-houston-book-fair/

bootsy is right that there is a lot of work to be done here.

And I think that it needs to be done at all levels of society, not just 'on the streets'.

We have to recognise that there are many journalists, politicians, community workers, union leaders, lawyers, religious organisations, etc that are also doing the job of resisting fascism.

We should join with these sectors - we should even get jobs in these sectors to become even more effective. You can still fight on the streets if you are a lawyer or journalist, etc.

Also, perhaps we should ask ourselves what we are doing in our communities that will help build a bulwark against division within the class?

What I want to know is: are we doing enough?

One thing I do want to object to though is that bootsy is, unconsciously I am sure, promoting an insidious Euro-centric and US-centric attitude here.

Is it the case that we only get frightened of fascism when it raises its ugly head in the cosy Western democracies, with their beautiful architecture and pleasant coffee shops? Even if we actually live on the other side of the world to Europe and the US?

Below is a link to a list of the '49 current dictatorships and authoritarian regimes' that exist around the world.

Why are these places ignored?

People in these countries are on the front line in the struggle against fascism:

https://planetrulers.com/current-dictators/

PS Merriam-Webster definition of fascism:

[Fascism] stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Tom Henry reduces every question concerning real needs of real people to a rhetorical, moral and/or philosophical question. Which is why nearly everthing he says is irrelevant to anything but further philosophising.

eh?

Why is there no discussion of expanding our anti-fascism beyond 'the street', and beyond the world's leading democracies?

And we must ask ourselves what we are actually doing in our neighbourhoods? Not that this means we can't travel to other places too, or go to live in different countries and fight there.

It all smacks of white privilege under threat to me.

Your response is a joke from the world of blinkered reality. Except it's not funny.

Pretty sure most people here do give a damn about people living under totalitarian regimes in other parts of the world but there is bugger all we can actually do about this, so fighting against fascism, in whatever form that takes, in our own countries is the best we can do under the circumstances.

Yes, Fleur, I am saying that it appears to me that we should up the ante, get involved in far more than what people talk about here, become much more effective, do more than Antifa as well as doing Antifa.

If it looks like a religious group, or a journalist, or a politician, or athletes, or a community organisation, etc, are doing a more effective job than the proclaimed anti-fascists then perhaps something vaguely ridiculous is going on. Are we only effectively laying the basis to be able to say: "look I told you so" - Or are we actually concerned about doing stuff?

I also think it is not appropriate to dismiss out of hand the notion of white privilege and the part it might play here, as well as the Euro- and US-centric aspect that might be underlying positions and attitudes.

Tom Henry, you are just being a guilt-mongering troll. What "more effective job" do you do?

Hieronymous, the point is not to ask each other what we are doing specifically but to ask ourselves if we think we are doing enough. I personally do not think I am doing enough. It is easier if one is young and active to make choices that might make your life more useful to 'the struggle' - this is what I have done in my own youth (but not enough!) and currently. This is the start of a discussion on this issue which I am grappling with in my own thinking and practice.

But trying to close down the issues I have raised here is very dodgy, Hieronymous. Maybe you should head back to your coffee shop, have a soy latte, and cool off mate?

This is how anything serious and challenging on these threads ends up in pathetic abuse.

Tom Henry, you are very dodgy. I wish we could trade you to the local yoga studio and get S. Artesian back.

You think this is "pathetic abuse"? Who the fuck are you, a white victim? A thin-skinned snowflake? A doormat for 3rd world anti-imperialism?

Tom Henry

PS Merriam-Webster definition of fascism:

[Fascism] stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

You really are quite daft. Here's an accurate definition:

Mark Bray

[fascism is]…a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.

(p. 10 of Mark Bray's Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook; the quote is borrowed from Robert Paxton's 2004 book The Anatomy of Fascism)

You can't even read, Hieronymouse. Read my posts here again so you look less stupid - where did I criticize Antifa?. I suspected the soy latte quip would set you off.

Best thing for you to do would be to run off to your play pen, have your little tantrum there, and try not to think about your Western Civilization crashing down around you.

Hereonmymouse's reply:

You can't even read, Tom Henry. You're the one who looks stupid. You're the one who drinks soy latte. You have coffee with the alt-right.

As to your quote defining fascism - are you arguing here, from your Californian condo, that you think the rise of fascism in the US is worse than the plight of proletarians in dictatorships around the world. You have to get a sense of perspective mate.

I dunno. Calm down? Stop drinking? Don't be such a slapped arse, you twit. hahaha

[EDIT: in Post 52 Hieronymous associated me with Milo Yiannopoulos - which is why I wrote "You have coffee with the alt-right" above. But Hieronymous has replaced that subsequently and with no note with the current text in post 52.]

Tom Henry

You can't even read, Hieronymouse. Read my posts here again so you look less stupid - where did I criticize Antifa?. I suspected the soy latte quip would set you off.

Best thing for you to do would be to run off to your play pen, have your little tantrum there, and try not to think about your Western Civilization crashing down around you.

Hereonmymouse's reply:

You can't even read, Tom Henry. You're the one who looks stupid. You're the one who drinks soy latte. You have coffee with the alt-right.

As to your quote defining fascism - are you arguing here, from your Californian condo, that you think the rise of fascism in the US is worse than the plight of proletarians in dictatorships around the world. You have to get a sense of perspective mate.

I dunno. Calm down? Stop drinking? Don't be such a slapped arse, you twit. hahaha

Apparently, maturity isn't one of your strong suits.

Tom Henry

eh?

Why is there no discussion of expanding our anti-fascism beyond 'the street', and beyond the world's leading democracies?

And we must ask ourselves what we are actually doing in our neighbourhoods? Not that this means we can't travel to other places too, or go to live in different countries and fight there.

It all smacks of white privilege under threat to me.

Your response is a joke from the world of blinkered reality. Except it's not funny.

I wholeheartedly support this position. Please, Tom Henry, lead by example and turn your attention towards whatever you think is the worst possible problem, regardless of your actual ability to affect the problem in question without cocking it up. All questions are at once dissolved to either a reductive moralism or do-nothing nihilism depending on who you want to browbeat and points you want to score. Nuance doesn't exist and every little thing someone does to make their lot better in capitalism is really just a profound statement that the person in question only wants that little thing and literally nothing else and is therefore not really revolutionary, or is actually a secret fascist or Leninist at heart, and the reason this is the case is...what, again? And for some reason this isn't just obsessive moralism on your part, obviously.

Do something like, I don't know, flying to Uganda to hunt down Joseph Kony or something. Or maybe take the nihilist route, cease the useless propagandizing because nothing anybody does can ever get us closer to the revolution, and never post again. We'll be right behind you, I swear.

World famous nihilist Tom Henry en route to the airport on his mission to fight fascism "beyond the street," fly to Uganda to capture Joseph Kony, and smash US/Euro-centric white privilege in the process. Hurray!

Tom Henry wrote:

Yes, Fleur, I am saying that it appears to me that we should up the ante, get involved in far more than what people talk about here, become much more effective, do more than Antifa as well as doing Antifa.

In the context of:

We have to recognise that there are many journalists, politicians, community workers, union leaders, lawyers, religious organisations, etc that are also doing the job of resisting fascism.

We should join with these sectors - we should even get jobs in these sectors to become even more effective. You can still fight on the streets if you are a lawyer or journalist, etc.

And also:

It all smacks of white privilege under threat to me.

In the context of:

Is it the case that we only get frightened of fascism when it raises its ugly head in the cosy Western democracies, with their beautiful architecture and pleasant coffee shops? Even if we actually live on the other side of the world to Europe and the US?

Below is a link to a list of the '49 current dictatorships and authoritarian regimes' that exist around the world.

Why are these places ignored?

People in these countries are on the front line in the struggle against fascism:

https://planetrulers.com/current-dictators/

By the way, I am not a nihilist (not even a nihilist communist). Just if anyone sensible is reading this and is wondering.

Tom Henry

By the way, I am not a nihilist (not even a nihilist communist). Just if anyone sensible is reading this and is wondering.

So you're going to go hunt down Kony then?

EDIT: my bad, I was feeding the nihilist troll.

Hey, I'm not a troll either.

And is it acceptable to edit your posts significantly without any notification. See my note in post 54.

Have you been told off?

Tom Henry

Have you been told off?

By Joseph Kony?

Or one of the other 49 bad guys?

I have a confession to make: I've been told [off] that you're a much, much more flamboyantly dilettantish troll than Milo Yiannapolis.

I mean, look, I get Tom Henry's basic point. Moralistic justifications of antifascism are weak because they are susceptible to "greater problem" arguments i.e. "fascism is bad, sure, but you should be focused on this greater problem"; or they get people involved in unsavory politics or cross-class alliances in a popular antifascism. But this is obviously based in an erroneous either-or fallacy that so many of the anti-antifa pundits push, in which it is claimed without substantiation that one can either be a committed revolutionary or an antifascist. The calls for Tom Henry to come down from the world of abstract philosophizing aren't moralistic defenses of antifascism, it's a plea to drop this made up either-or problem and to argue that you can't actually do revolutionary working-class politics if you ignore attacks on the working class.

Imagine, if you will admit this somewhat contrived situation, trying to do communist politics in an area in which fascists are in ascendence. You, committed revolutionary, have obviously scoffed at those distracting antifascist counterdemonstrations that pop up whenever the fascists come into town because you don't want to get sullied doing mere antifascism. You get down to all that good workplace organizing, in fact you're even in a spot where a coworker who you've been working with on some workplace-wide grievance is asking you about what your politics are. So you get down to explaining the class struggle, the self-abolition of the working class, all that good stuff. Then your coworker says to you something like this: "well, that's great, but where were you/the anarchists when I almost got my skull caved in by a bunch of fascists/the Nazis were attacking my working class neighborhood/whatever; before I can even think about the class struggle, I have to defend myself, and a politics that precludes my defense outside of the workplace because it thinks it's a distraction isn't a politics that I can participate in."

That's the basic question at the heart of anarchist antifascism. Or do we have to wait for the fascists to move from "merely" attacking working class people and neighborhoods to attacking our attempts at workplace organization before it becomes an issue for the working class as a class? We all know that will happen eventually if we cede the ground and the initiative for antifascism to liberal bourgeois politics and politicians, who the Nazis will roll over because we all know that the bourgeoisie would rather a Nazi win than a communist. We all know that if we leave fighting the fascists to the bourgeoisie, that the bourgeois will simply allow the fascists to gain strength while we hemorrhage ours to fascists attacks on working class people that we, in our "principled" stance, refused to oppose. Or is this another episode of "after Hitler, our turn" kind of thinking, now with extra farce? That, somehow, after the fascists run roughshod over the bourgeoisie, we will be in a position to defeat the fascists and somehow win the social revolution?

If you're worried about anarchists and communists getting pulled into bourgeois politics by antifascism, it's all the more reason to have an explicitly anarchist antifascism opposed to both the fascists and the capitalists. Only such a movement can show that these two groups are not in conflict nearly as much as they would like people to believe, that so long as there is capitalism there will be fascism, and successful antifascism requires the class struggle against capitalism.

S. Artesian has some useful words on the subject: https://anticapital0.wordpress.com/why-we-are-not-anti-antifa-why-we-are-anti-anti-antifa/

DevastateTheAvenues, great post!

The KKK in the U.S. has had 3 phases:

Phase 1: its founding in 1866 in Pulaski, Tennessee for the purpose of the restoration of white supremacy

Phase 2: its resurrection in 1915 in Atlanta

Phase 3: the current one, begun in 1946 when it forged alliances with southern police departments to oppose the Civil Rights Movement

In the 2nd phase, it spread to also become an urban movement. It advocated for prohibition and was strongly opposed to the flood of working class immigrants coming from southern and eastern Europe, as well as directing attacks against them in addition to violence against blacks, Jews and Catholics. The Klan were a proxy arm of the bosses, as well as being loyal defenders of the authority of the state. They were used as a volunteer army of scabs, putting down strikes by militants from the IWW in places like Denver, Colorado, Portland, Oregon and San Pedro, California (among numerous other attacks on strikes, class struggle and working class militants). Cops, much like today, were often active in the Klan and the latter functioned as vigilantes to do what the the police couldn't legally get away with. Between 1920 and 1925, the KKK grew to as many as 5,000,000 members, including governors of Texas, Indiana and Oregon, and mayors of Atlanta, Indianapolis and Denver.

My point is that as the 3rd phase morphs into a new era with a sympathizer in the White House, we'll inevitably see more open, overt attacks on the working class by white nationalists as in the 2nd phase.

We can't bury our heads in the sand and wish them away, nor should we follow Tom Henry on safari to track down Joseph Kony in Uganda. I just read an account on the internet that said white nationalists in the U.S. have killed 27 people this year already. Add to that all the black and brown folks murdered by pigs emboldened by a white supremacist agenda.

DevastateTheAvenues

S. Artesian has some useful words on the subject: https://anticapital0.wordpress.com/why-we-are-not-anti-antifa-why-we-are-anti-anti-antifa/

I agree about Artesian's excellent piece; I've been sending it around to comrades since he wrote it.

Hahaha

Did I say I was against Antifa? No, not at all.
Am I against Antifa? No, not at all.
Am I against anti-fascism? Where did I say that??
Did I say I was worried about anarchists getting sucked in by bourgeois politics - no, I suggested that they should get stuck in on all levels, and not limit things by being holier than thou. There are a vast number of people to work with, and many different ways of working.

Devaswhatever wrote:

Only such a movement can show that these two groups [capitalists and fascists] are not in conflict nearly as much as they would like people to believe, that so long as there is capitalism there will be fascism, and successful antifascism requires the class struggle against capitalism.

But this is just an idealistic slogan like we have heard so many times before, it is just saying: look we need to convince everyone that fascism and capitalism are linked, while simultaneously building the anti-capitalist movement. Your strategy above doesn't sound like genuine participation, it sounds like propaganda for your politics - people see through that shit pretty quick.

And this movement is not being built and, as bootsy states, the most pressing threat in the US is fascism - so surely there should be, following this logic, a fully collaborationist strategy that we become properly part of to destroy or contain that threat in the first instance?

If you continue to refuse to collaborate genuinely with the wide range of people and groups who are anti-fascist, while you sanctimoniously harp on about the the revolution against capital, trying to recruit people to your cause, then you are going to become guilty of weakening the broad anti-fascist sentiments and actions that exist right now.

I don't know, Tomfoolery, maybe I think you oppose antifascism because you think antifascism is some kind of an unresolvable moral conundrum that is ultimately going to lead to some wrong conclusion you never explicitly spell out, but you imply what it is by saying that "fascism hums like a motor in low gear at the core of all ideology and all belief"; in context, this is presumably meant to be the "wrong outcome" of antifascism aka the antifascists are actually secret fascists, or at least are somehow playing into the hands of fascism. These claims are all offered--without substantiation, of course--in your post in this thread.

Or maybe it's because in a number of threads you've attempted, rather crudely, to bait people who defend antifascism into taking up all sorts of unsavory political positions e.g. collaborating with the Allied nation's in WW2, in this most recent post and elsewhere in this thread attempting to tie up antifascism with reformist politics, and so on.

Being generous, I assume you think fascism, class collaboration, and reformism are bad, and if you think antifascism is linked to these things then you oppose antifascism. But perhaps I am mistaken and you actually want fascism, class collaboration, and reformism instead.

In any case, once again you present antifascism and revolution as an either-or situation without actually providing an actual argument why this is the case. Let me put it to you simply: you're not as clever as you think you are. No matter how many times you say it, there is no straight line between "fascism is a problem" and "we must collaborate with the capitalist bourgeoisie against fascism", particularly if the argument is that capitalism itself foments fascism. That's like saying that if one has swallowed a fly, the logical next step is to swallow the maggot-infested rotting carcass it came from in the misguided belief that it will get rid of the fly.

An anarchist antifascist has every reason to refuse collaborating with the capitalist bourgeoisie against fascism on the simple grounds that such collaboration will not actually defeat fascism.

Don’t you get it? The nihilists have reached communist enlightenment and from their heightened plateau they graciously descend like theoretical guardian angels to point out how things really look from their ABSOLUTELY UNIQUE viewpoint. Everyone else is wrong, their practice a failure so far. The solution? No practice! An anti-practical/impractical theory. No more engagement with non-theoretical reality, the only safe bet against possible error - and also against any possible revealing of the errors of a hermetically sealed theory. Ni-comm - a ‘theory’ for hermits.

Their dialectical Rubik cube conundrums - juggling potential philosophical contradictions - seek to ‘prove’ nothing must be imposed on reality but more of their theory. Any decisive action or agency risks vanguardism so best avoided (though, philosophically, even stating this is an intentional ‘action’ and so may – theoretically - keep them awake at night.) This reinforces their preconceived conclusion, their ideological pose; more waffling and do-nothingism that supposedly protects them from the risk of being mistaken or required to find any practice that would test their ‘theory’. They have pretty little theoretical formulas to nurture like flower pots on their window sill and to try to impress the neighbours with. And that is the limit of their engagement with reality and the limit of their relevance to anything. All else is endlessly trolling their Big Idea and the smugness induced by its possession. As a static theoretical strand devoted to justifying doing nothing rather than something, brilliant. As anything useful beyond an intellectual stuck record and as passing amusement for others - useless.

You haven't understood a word of what I have said.

I am suggesting a very simple practical change in strategy, attitude and perspective.

I am saying that we should suspend all efforts to draw people to our cause of anti-capitalism under the threat of fascism and/or dictatorship.

(This was the essence of my asking about WW2, but that is a more complex issue, as posters indicated, and I still haven't made up my mind about it).

We should participate in anti-racism and anti-fascism not as 'revolutionaries' with their patronising mindset.

I am not against reformism. I am not against class collaboration if it achieves a worthwhile reform, or outcome, such as the containment of fascism.

We should not effectively help to promote the recruiting drive that Trotskyists, Leninists, Maoists, and Anarchists identify in the social antagonism towards fascism.

It will be the case, of course, that we end up being alongside these recruiters, and that is fine, but we should always make it plain that our participation is only to resist fascism, not to help the supposed cause of their particular sect, or indeed proletarian revolution itself. Our perspective should be that we are not there to help their particular party or group. We should attempt to thwart and expose any recruiting efforts by left recruiting organisations in these circumstances.

The identification of possibilities to aggrandise one's own political project - that is, to turn the fight against fascism into a fight against capitalism - is wholly suspect and instantly recognisably so by those who do not want to become part of what they might see as some leftist cult.

It is also a dishonest and paternalistic way of going about things. ("We know best, we know all about fascism and capitalism, we know what is best for you, just open your eyes.")

Anti-fascism should be divorced from all these recruiting impulses.

If anarchists etc engage in fascism as a way of promoting anti-capitalism then they are acting disingenuously and ultimately, even immediately, are betraying the people who will suffer from fascism (including themselves) because they weaken the possible broad resistance by fragmenting it and weakening it from the outset.

It has been pointed out above that something I wrote might contradict what I am saying here. On the ‘six reasons why Chomsky is wrong about antifa’ thread:

But there are two principles one can take away from the arguments over fascism and anti-fascism.
The first is that anyone who believes in freedom of speech is either a dupe or a liar.
The second is that fascism hums like a motor in low gear at the core of all ideology and all belief.

But this does not contradict what I am saying, in my view, because what I am arguing against here again is an immersion in ideology (the ideology of revolution or anti-capitalism, or democracy, etc).

What I am arguing for is a simple fight against racism and fascism, under no political sect banner, with no hidden agendas.

Tom Henry

I am saying that we should suspend all efforts to draw people to our cause of anti-capitalism under the threat of fascism and/or dictatorship.

And I am saying that, following a premise that capitalism foments fascism, this is obviously counterproductive. Anarchists have generally taken the lessons of the Spanish revolution, for example, to heart: to neglect the fight against capitalism in favor of a narrower fight against just fascism means our defeat at the hands of both. No one here has seriously said otherwise, no one's justification for fighting fascism here has anything to do with that kind of lesser-evilism, so I have no clue why you thought that this proposal of yours would be accepted by anyone--or, rather, that you thought that you could catch anyone in such a crude argumentive trap.

We should participate in anti-racism and anti-fascism not as 'revolutionaries' with their patronising mindset.

And, finally, Tomfoolery comes down from the world of abstract philosophy to comment on the actual practice of fighting fascism and his damning criticism is that it's...patronizing. Well, thanks for nothing, I suppose.

I am not against reformism. I am not against class collaboration if it achieves a worthwhile reform, or outcome, such as the containment of fascism.

Then I am completely uninterested in anything you have to say.

The identification of possibilities to aggrandise one's own political project - that is, to turn the fight against fascism into a fight against capitalism - is wholly suspect and instantly recognisably so by those who do not want to become part of what they might see as some leftist cult.

It is also a dishonest and paternalistic way of going about things. ("We know best, we know all about fascism and capitalism, we know what is best for you, just open your eyes.")

Anti-fascism should be divorced from all these recruiting impulses.

If anarchists etc engage in fascism as a way of promoting anti-capitalism then they are acting disingenuously and ultimately, even immediately, are betraying the people who will suffer from fascism (including themselves) because they weaken the possible broad resistance by fragmenting it and weakening it from the outset.

Sounds to me like the only one with a recruitment mindset is you, requiring that anarchists abandon principle and theory so that you can get as many people as possible for a misguided fight against fascism and fascism alone, as if such a thing were even possible in the first place. This supposed "simple fight" against racism and fascism obviously doesn't exist, and to think such a thing could exist is to think that racism and fascism are isolated social phenomena wholly disconnected from the rest of life and reality, and therefore can be excised out by a "simple fight" against them. In other words, it's totally fucking bonkers, and I don't give a single shit about anything bonkers.

You have made a number of mis-readings of what I have written in the post above and previous ones.

Just one question:

If you are against reformism does that mean you are against participating in workers' struggles for such things as improved wages and conditions, or against the establishment of, for example, gay rights?

I recognise the limits of reformism but I cannot be against it, since I participate in and support workers' struggles for improved wages and conditions, and support efforts toward equality.

Amongst other misunderstandings you respond to one thing I write thus:

Tomfoolery writes:

We should participate in anti-racism and anti-fascism not as 'revolutionaries' with their patronising mindset.

Devaswhatever responds:

And, finally, Tomfoolery comes down from the world of abstract philosophy to comment on the actual practice of fighting fascism and his damning criticism is that it's...patronizing. Well, thanks for nothing, I suppose.

I wrote not that the practice of fighting fascism was patronising, but that the mindset of revolutionaries was patronising (we know best, we know how the world works) - particularly if they participate in the fight against fascism to try to elucidate for others the connection between fascism and capitalism. This kind of approach instantly erodes their effect unless they are only talking to a tiny band of true believers. And it never worked in the past either, when there were a lot more socialists around.

Anyway, I am now just repeating myself so I will leave it here, unless there are any coherent postings made.

TH

We should participate in anti-racism and anti-fascism not as 'revolutionaries' with their patronising mindset.
I am not against reformism. I am not against class collaboration if it achieves a worthwhile reform, or outcome, such as the containment of fascism.

So now, after all his 'radical' critique of 'revolutionaries' as unconscious leftists, TH is making an explicit argument for cross-class popular front anti-fascism. His participation would be on the basis of not mentioning his anti-capitalist views (just like the entryist leftists).

TH has previously argued that there's an irresistable gravitational pull dragging all activity towards leftism (others might call that opportunism, confusion and/or stupidity). But maybe TH just wants to start where he believes things must inevitably end up; according to TH, any intervention either way will end badly anyway;

the debate over anti-fascism must always devolve down to the taking of one or another type of presumed moral high ground. ...
The right thing to do - now and in general - appears to ultimately lead to the wrong - or a wrong, or unexpected - outcome. The reverse of this formulation also applies. Perhaps that’s the ruse of history. http://libcom.org/blog/6-reasons-why-chomsky-wrong-about-antifa-18082017?page=2

Or perhaps that's just someone disappearing up their own theoretical hole.

This is worth responding to.

RM writes:

His participation would be on the basis of not mentioning his anti-capitalist views (just like the entryist leftists).

We all have views that might be irrelevant to making an activity effective. Therefore if someone goes on an anti-racist action and pesters people with their belief that the only way to understand the world is through an examination of train timetables and that racism can only really be ultimately defeated by developing a trainspotter's community... then the people this person pesters are going to want to avoid her/him - even if s/he is actually, ultimately, right! And every time s/he turns up wearing her/his train badges and other regalia, people may feel a sense of revulsion or ennui.

If I join in an anti-racist action and support a particular football team, but do not mention it and do not try subtly to get people to like my team and what it stands for, would I be doing entryism for the football team I support?

Entryists don't not mention their views, they try their best to draw people closer to their views by various subtle or not so subtle means, and they try to influence the direction of things so that things move closer to their vision of what should be done. And they do this consciously. (In most cases we can't help what we do unconsciously, nobody's perfect.).

What I am proposing is resistance to this impulse, as I have said a few times now.

Resisting and thwarting the entryist strategy and impulse, in ourselves and others, is what I am proposing as a strategy and perspective to consider.

So I think you have misunderstood what entryism is.

RM also writes:

according to TH, any intervention either way will end badly anyway

Yes, this is an ultimate possibility. We have the whole history of capitalism and the state to back that argument up. Or do you think that things have got better and better after all the class struggle we have witnessed, and that we are at the high-point now, with paradise just around the corner?

But how things might ultimately turn out, while interesting, is irrelevant: we are compelled to resist, and struggle against, injustice and oppression, and to do this is natural and right.

What I am suggesting is in regard to effectiveness in a particular situation, for the attainment of a particular, specific outcome.

What I am suggesting is that we can remove two factors from our participation in actions and movements: our hidden agendas and our paternalist and patronising mindsets (by which I mean our apparent access to higher knowledge), that is, our effective entryism.

We can, of course, say things to others like: "I don't ultimately trust these Trots, who have another agenda here, so we have to watch for if they begin to effectively derail what we are actually fighting for."

These two factors within the 'revolutionary' approach do not oppose injustice and oppression, they just reflect it, but in a slightly different light... and many people outside of 'revolutionary' circles, or having abandoned revolutionary politics, perceive this - because they actually aren't stupid.

''Agendas'' don't have to be ''hidden''. Our involvement in a variety of everyday struggles based on our own self-perceived material interests can still benefit, firstly from discussion amongst our own closest friends and comrades as to the benefits of that for ourselves and others. and secondly from the usual discussions amongst the wider group of people involved in any particular struggle - a process of self-education which is potentially beneficial for everyone if it is carried on in an open and honest way. Issues are connected in this society it makes no sense to avoid discussion of those connections. That process isn't necessarily any less justified if it involves the efforts of organised political groups by way of leaflets, blogs, and online journals etc. Tom is perhaps over-reacting to the way that many small competing political groups (not just the Trots) operate with either hidden agendas and/or on the false assumption that they somehow have the only true path to salvation, but in my experience most workers when involved in these everyday struggles will pick and choose whatever might be of value and use to them from the competing array of ideas from such groups based on their own experience, and the level of trust they have in the honesty and commitment of the individuals in those groups. On that level it would seem that Tom and Red might agree? However Tom seems to be searching for some kind of psychological system that will unearth and guard against what he perceives as our individual innate tendencies to pursue 'hidden agendas' which could just be an expression of his own anxiety that he now takes upon himself to project onto the rest of us. I suspect this given Tom's own apparent 'hidden agendas' in some of the ways he has sought to argue his own case on this site which has then coloured the irritated responses he has got from others.

TH states obvious things as great revelations that prob most here have long considered and dealt with; I doubt most people here try to ram down people's throats their revolutionary politics at every opportunity. But the contradiction remains - after claiming everyone was an unconscious leftist, now TH's proposal for ani-fascism mirrors leftism exactly. The further contradiction - that anti-fascism as bourgeois ideology seeking only to reform, refine and cleanse capitalist democracy can't be critiqued without acknowledging its function within capitalism - is ditched by the great theorist of The Total Critique in favour of ... what? Immediate pragmatism and hoped for greater acceptance. Yet he's spent years smugly lecturing others on their pseudo-radicality and hopeless falls into leftist behaviour.

This is specifically about anti-fascism. In this context (but it might apply to others) I am suggesting that agendas have to be abandoned.

You are misunderstanding what I have written, and apparently trying to pin some psychological disorder upon me because what I have written you disagree with, thereby derailing the discussion. There is a long history of this sort of behaviour in politics.

We all have agendas on this site, because it is a site for general discussion in a general arena of libertarian communism.

I was spurred to elaborating this idea on anti- fascism by bootsy's post above. I became aware that anti-fascism as practiced by the far left was most probably shooting anti-fascism in the foot. This is interesting, and I think important, see my posts above.

I don't ultimately trust these nihilists, who have another agenda here, so we have to watch for if they begin to effectively derail what we are actually discussing and fighting against. How is Tom Henry's hidden agenda of dogmatic donothingism and trollish know-it-allism any different from the entryism of a garden variety Trot or Leftist?

I'm having trouble following the conversation with Tom Henry. Too many layers of irony.

I was asked earlier not to be so abstract, so I'll do my best. From the thread about supporting the allies in WW2:
fingers malone

If you were in France, Yugoslavia etc and trying to fight in a resistance movement, wouldn't you be somewhat dependent on the Allies for resources? Isn't that a lot of the reason for anarchists supporting 'The Allies', the need for weapons and supplies?

It is true that all militant efforts require either being supported by a state or being a state (i.e., taxing and conscripting the population under your "protection"). The material side of orienting yourself like a state: you must rely on nasty friends or become nasty yourself. This is the reason why war is incompatible with anarchism.

lettersjournal

A heuristic: if my enthusiasms are also promoted by journalists and activists and politicians, I'm a sucker. Sure, I am earnest in these enthusiasms and sure of their authenticity - that's what makes me a sucker. 'Self-defense' is the rationale for every war. Don't go to war. Don't be a sucker.

I'm not caught up in the enthusiasm for antifascism, but I can be a sucker sometimes too, for other things. It's hard to avoid.

We're faced with an interesting situation. It's not exactly that competing forces are trying to recruit us for their projects (stop climate change! crack the Russian conspiracy!) but more that all the competing forces are incoherent and confused. There are no clear projects. No one is lying because there isn't a truth to deviate from. Each enthusiasm lasts for only a short time, sometimes mere hours and minutes, and the enthusiasms that get lumped together never add up.

On some level, contemporary enthusiasm for antifascism could be understood as a messaging strategy by the Democratic Party (going back at least to Clinton's 'alt-right' speech), but I think that assigns the DNC too much agency and coherence. Political parties and journalists are swept along just like the rest of us.

It doesn't matter if you have the correct positions about the 'issues of the day': being stuck in the cycle of responding to daily events and controversies overrides the content of your responses. What matters is freeing yourself from that cycle and pursuing a different orientation and project. And I mean that in a practical way, not just philosophically. But I also mean it philosophically.

lettersjournal

I'm having trouble following the conversation with Tom Henry. Too many layers of irony.

I was asked earlier not to be so abstract, so I'll do my best. From the thread about supporting the allies in WW2:
fingers malone

If you were in France, Yugoslavia etc and trying to fight in a resistance movement, wouldn't you be somewhat dependent on the Allies for resources? Isn't that a lot of the reason for anarchists supporting 'The Allies', the need for weapons and supplies?

It is true that all militant efforts require either being supported by a state or being a state (i.e., taxing and conscripting the population under your "protection"). The material side of orienting yourself like a state: you must rely on nasty friends or become nasty yourself. This is the reason why war is incompatible with anarchism.

War is incompatible with anarchism..... I certainly think militarisation of a struggle is a very serious threat to any liberatory potential, but what should people do when a war lands on their heads?

I don't know. I imagine I would do what most people do: run away or hide.

so here any interaction with academics is is unatcepable

https://libcom.org/forums/feedback-content/why-article-has-been-removed-07102011?page=14#comment-598537
Tom Henry

In bed with Academia:

What could possibly go wrong?

but here we most work with anyone with out the slightish criticism regardless of tactical differences and ojectives

https://libcom.org/forums/theory/chomsky-antifa-17082017?page=2#comment-598463

Tom Henry

You haven't understood a word of what I have said.

I am suggesting a very simple practical change in strategy, attitude and perspective.

I am saying that we should suspend all efforts to draw people to our cause of anti-capitalism under the threat of fascism and/or dictatorship.

(This was the essence of my asking about WW2, but that is a more complex issue, as posters indicated, and I still haven't made up my mind about it).

We should participate in anti-racism and anti-fascism not as 'revolutionaries' with their patronising mindset.

I am not against reformism. I am not against class collaboration if it achieves a worthwhile reform, or outcome, such as the containment of fascism.

the croydonian anarchist

lettersjournal

If you forgot about the anti-fascist activism and went about your life, it's likely you would henceforth never encounter a single fascist, much less have to defend yourself against one, whereas if you define yourself in opposition to a thing, you cleave yourself to it. (In the same way, if you defined yourself as an anti-Islamist, I'm sure you would find yourself in fights with Islamists.)

What if part of your life involves, I don't know, being a practicing muslim for instance. Or an openly trans person? Or, god forbid, being black. For those with less privilege than the copious amounts you obviously have, as evidenced by your abstract nonsense, you might find their experiences differ.

Almost no muslims or transsexuals or black people have picked anti-fascist activism or street fighting as a reasonable or necessary thing to do with their lives. So if the aggregate/average behavior groups is your guide for what ought to be done, anti-fascism is not an obvious choice, to put it lightly. If you are worried about fighting against groups who kill muslims and black people, I think it would make more sense to be an anti-Islamist or anti-gang militant.

(Survivors and family members of the congregation attacked by the fascist in Charleston responded to the event with calls for Christian love and forgiveness of the killer, as did the father of the young woman killed in Charlottesville.)

Let's explore the practical/abstract distinction re: fascism. The denunciation of the abstract in favor of the concrete was a fascist slogan, with 'abstract' being used to mean 'Jewish'. I don't think that's how you mean it, so I'm curious to hear why my abstraction is bad (especially compared to your proposed alternative: a thought experiment of imagining myself as a practicing muslim).

radicalgrafitti wrote:

so here any interaction with academics is is unatcepable

https://libcom.org/forums/feedback-content/why-article-has-been-removed-07102011?page=14#comment-598537

Tom Henry wrote:
In bed with Academia:
What could possibly go wrong?

but here we most work with anyone with out the slightish criticism regardless of tactical differences and ojectives

https://libcom.org/forums/theory/chomsky-antifa-17082017?page=2#comment-598463

I didn't write or mean to imply that 'any interaction with academics is unacceptable' - I meant that for the purposes of class struggle it is fraught. I also agree with bootsy's intuition on that other thread that being an academic is fraught. The universities are key motors of what could be termed capitalist culture and they are centres of authority and research for the control of populations and the working class. The university is not an innocent satellite to Western hegemony. Rather, it is a central process. The university sucks in radicality and spits out better ways to manage situations for the benefit of progress. It is never an innocent repository of objective knowledge. On the contrary, it is an action on the world, a one-way dialogue, funded by the ruling classes, that disingenuously presents itself as impartial and objective. .

So, my suggestion that we work with a variety of people at all levels of society in the struggle against fascism doesn't discount the perils of that endeavour, but the point of the suggestion is to make anti-fascism more effective - and yes, I think my argument should be challenged with the history of popular frontism, but I think that instead of creating a new umbrella organisation (that people suspect might be a vehicle for a particular political ideology) we should perhaps become involved in the more informal structures of resistance that are already in place (this includes working with the formal structure of something like Antifa, but recognising its possible limitations). I am concentrating on one thing here, not the social revolution.

lettersjournal writes:

I'm having trouble following the conversation with Tom Henry. Too many layers of irony.

I'm not sure if the implication here is that I am being ironic too. I am not. Read everything I have said as what I actually think, without any irony.

lettersjournal

Almost no muslims or transsexuals or black people have picked anti-fascist activism or street fighting as a reasonable or necessary thing to do with their lives. So if the aggregate/average behavior groups is your guide for what ought to be done, anti-fascism is not an obvious choice, to put it lightly. If you are worried about fighting against groups who kill muslims and black people, I think it would make more sense to be an anti-Islamist or anti-gang militant.

(Survivors and family members of the congregation attacked by the fascist in Charleston responded to the event with calls for Christian love and forgiveness of the killer, as did the father of the young woman killed in Charlottesville.)

Let's explore the practical/abstract distinction re: fascism. The denunciation of the abstract in favor of the concrete was a fascist slogan, with 'abstract' being used to mean 'Jewish'. I don't think that's how you mean it, so I'm curious to hear why my abstraction is bad (especially compared to your proposed alternative: a thought experiment of imagining myself as a practicing muslim).

Almost none.......yeah sure -_- What is your definition of reasonable and responsible. Anti fascism is self defence for a lot of people. Self defence is both reasonable and responsible.

I am not sure what the point of you bringing up 'abstract' being made to mean 'jewish' by anti semites if you don't think I meant it in that way. I am not asking you to engage in a thought experiment, I am asking you to engage in some empathy and checking of privilege, which again you exude and seem to actively revel in.

Spikymike writes:

On that level it would seem that Tom and Red might agree?

In fact, if one reads through the 'Setup In Charlottesville' thread (from RM's first post) and compares what Red Marriott and Hieronymous are arguing with what I have been arguing here one can see that we three are arguing for the same thing.

My contribution is just a suggestion for a tweaking of strategy and perspective - something that could actually serve to bring 'the left-comms' into things as well.

the croydonian anarchist

lettersjournal

Almost no muslims or transsexuals or black people have picked anti-fascist activism or street fighting as a reasonable or necessary thing to do with their lives. So if the aggregate/average behavior groups is your guide for what ought to be done, anti-fascism is not an obvious choice, to put it lightly. If you are worried about fighting against groups who kill muslims and black people, I think it would make more sense to be an anti-Islamist or anti-gang militant.

(Survivors and family members of the congregation attacked by the fascist in Charleston responded to the event with calls for Christian love and forgiveness of the killer, as did the father of the young woman killed in Charlottesville.)

Let's explore the practical/abstract distinction re: fascism. The denunciation of the abstract in favor of the concrete was a fascist slogan, with 'abstract' being used to mean 'Jewish'. I don't think that's how you mean it, so I'm curious to hear why my abstraction is bad (especially compared to your proposed alternative: a thought experiment of imagining myself as a practicing muslim).

Almost none.......yeah sure -_- What is your definition of reasonable and responsible. Anti fascism is self defence for a lot of people. Self defence is both reasonable and responsible.

I am not sure what the point of you bringing up 'abstract' being made to mean 'jewish' by anti semites if you don't think I meant it in that way. I am not asking you to engage in a thought experiment, I am asking you to engage in some empathy and checking of privilege, which again you exude and seem to actively revel in.

There are maybe ~2000 antifa activists in the US, and almost all of them are white. So it's fair to say that there is no group of people for whom antifa activism is necessary, otherwise the numbers would be much higher. Far less than 1% of black people in America have decided to become antifa activists. Why do you think that is? May I empathize with those, like the survivors and family of the slain in South Carolina, who respond to fascist violence with love and forgiveness? Or are they 'privileged' too?

I bring up the history of opposing abstraction because I want to learn more about why you oppose it.

A few years ago, criticizing anti-fascism (and the idea of 'privilege') was the standard libcom position. No longer, it seems. As with the old threads about the Tahrir square protests in Egypt, critical ideas are abandoned at the first moment of action. A good illustration of why we shouldn't jump into action.

lettersjournal

Almost no muslims or transsexuals or black people have picked anti-fascist activism or street fighting as a reasonable or necessary thing to do with their lives.

This is false both in the current situation and historically.

For UK examples historically:

Tower Hamlets 1968-1970 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0306396816642997

Lewisham 1977: https://libcom.org/history/articles/battle-of-lewisham-1977

Southall 1979: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Si1eZQb17zU

In the US in the '60s there was Deacons for Defense.

Lots of people individually now attending anti-fascist stuff in the US, obvious example is the flameflower guy: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/charlottesville-care-worker-neo-nazis-corey-long-flame-thrower-peaceful-protest-virginia-ku-klux-a7894161.html

lettersjournal

If you are worried about fighting against groups who kill muslims and black people, I think it would make more sense to be an anti-Islamist or anti-gang militant.

"black on black crime" are you Tomi Lahren?

There are maybe ~2000 antifa activists in the US, and almost all of them are white.

In places like Modesto, LA, and the greater Bay Area, this is demonstrably false. If you insist upon relying on such "alternative facts," then there's nothing more to discuss with you.

lettersjournal

There are maybe ~2000 antifa activists in the US, and almost all of them are white. So it's fair to say that there is no group of people for whom antifa activism is necessary, otherwise the numbers would be much higher. Far less than 1% of black people in America have decided to become antifa activists. Why do you think that is? May I empathize with those, like the survivors and family of the slain in South Carolina, who respond to fascist violence with love and forgiveness? Or are they 'privileged' too?

I bring up the history of opposing abstraction because I want to learn more about why you oppose it.

A few years ago, criticizing anti-fascism (and the idea of 'privilege') was the standard libcom position. No longer, it seems. As with the old threads about the Tahrir square protests in Egypt, critical ideas are abandoned at the first moment of action. A good illustration of why we shouldn't jump into action.

To be generous, these are alternative facts and fake news; to be bluntly honest, they are straight-up lies.

Letters, in another thread you said you deal with threats of violence by hiding under your bed. Is this the inaction practice of all nihilists, or just your own personal cowardly response?

The discussion from bootsy’s post here is being derailed again.

But, I just want to make an observation that connects the topic of the derailment to the reformist/revolutionary or effective/fragmenting problematic within anti-fascism.

Why exactly do we focus on fascism? Is it to promote our own ‘interests’ or is it to stop fascism – or do these two things really work together without damaging the ‘prevent fascism’ impulse because as bootsy states:

Because fascism is a political movement which explicitely aims at crushing the workers' movement, trade unions, socialists, communists, anarchists and so forth as well as undermining working class solidarity by attacking migrants, blacks, Muslims, Catholics, Jews and so on. They are fundamentally more dangerous than any drug dealer. Their success comes at the direct expense of our communities, our aspirations, our needs and desires and our movement. They are not our only enemy, not by a long shot, but they are still an enemy who is totally clear about their desire to crush everything we stand for...

I take this to mean, and fair enough, that the reason we (as anarchists) resist (or should resist) fascism is primarily for the first reasons listed by bootsy, rather than the secondary ones. These secondary ones are defined by ‘as well as’: "'as well as... attacking migrants, blacks, Muslims, Catholics, Jews and so on"). Bootsy goes on to say that fascism is not our only enemy but it (fascism) is “totally clear about [its] desire to crush everything we stand for...'” And so I think he is saying that it is ‘our’ most immediate threat – as class struggle pro-revolutionaries - and to do nothing about it is a disastrous course to take.

But, to get back to the appeal from bootsy.

Repeat post:

Spikymike writes:

On that level it would seem that Tom and Red might agree?

In fact, if one reads through the 'Setup In Charlottesville' thread (from RM's first post) and compares what Red Marriott and Hieronymous are arguing with what I have been arguing here one can see that we three are arguing for the same thing.

My contribution is just a suggestion for a tweaking of strategy and perspective - something that could actually serve to bring 'the left-comms' into things as well.

lettersjournal

There are maybe ~2000 antifa activists in the US, and almost all of them are white. So it's fair to say that there is no group of people for whom antifa activism is necessary, otherwise the numbers would be much higher.

News just in. If your not from the US, you don't exist

See the end of comment three on this thread:

https://libcom.org/library/forget-about-elections-once-all-alain-badiou