Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Jimithyashford t1_j4runqb wrote

I REALLY don’t like branding eye anti-nazi effort as a pro anarchism effort.

Nazism is all of our problem, whether we are anarchist or not. I fucking hate Nazis. I fight against Nazis. But I also happen to think that anarchism is a terrible idea.

I personally, from a strategic standpoint, would rather the anti-nazi effort being just and only that, an anti nazi effort, not a vehicle for propagating or promoting anarchism. So that way the anti-nazi effort is universalized.

Obviously the people printing these stickers don’t agree, they obviously think anarchism is great and think branding the fight against Nazis as an anarchism effort is appropriate.

I would just like to advise that’s not the best idea. Reasonable and good people can both hate Nazis and also not be keen on anarchy.

51

-Valued_Customer- t1_j4t25mi wrote

I basically agree, but the matter is a little more complicated than that. The motivation, I suspect, is to come at fascism with not just opposition, but offering a positive alternative. Fascism doesn’t make gains because the problems it claims to fix are completely imagined, after all.

For many liberals, that alternative would be (of course) liberalism. But the fact is that now and throughout history, it’s always and only been the “far” Left that’s taken to the streets when the fascists come knocking. Liberals have tended to voice disagreement up until the point where it becomes unsafe to do so, at which point they either drop out, die, or comply.

11

Jimithyashford t1_j4tmz1c wrote

I don’t think that is, historically speaking, true. After all the single largest and costliest anti-fascist effort in human history was carried out by an alliance between the government la and citizens of the communist authoritarian left and the average post enlightenment neo-liberal western nation governments and citizenry….no?

That is to say, I suspect that a remarkably small % of those who fought in or supported the fight against Nazis and Italian racism were the far left of their day. The far left obviously participated, of course, but were only one very small slice of the anti-fascist pie, and of course woefully inadequate to the task of defeating them alone.

Thus kinda my point. Anti-fascism should be universalized to pretty much all of us that aren’t fascists and Nazis. Not branded as the effort of one particular ideology.

I just don’t think it’s a very wise idea, and I am advising against it.

But the kind of people willing to print up a bunch of stickers with an anarchy sign on them aren’t likely, obviously, to agree with me.

3

-Valued_Customer- t1_j4tyy8c wrote

Certainly, once the fascists seize control of a major global power and begin annexing surrounding countries, all bets are off. But I’m not talking about international politics; I’m talking about the domestic response to fascism.

1

Jimithyashford t1_j4v7tlf wrote

I also don’t think I it is accurate or true that out of the, probably, thousands of fascist surges that have taken place across the countries of the world in the last century, that it was the far left that did the work to quash those. It’s the average citizenry and standard institutions of a country, wherever they happen to fall on the political spectrum, that serve to keep those influences repressed. It’s not like everyone else could care less and it’s only these anarchist nazi-buster groups going around doing the work. I simply don’t think that’s historically accurate.

What I do think is historically accurate is that when a country becomes destabilized by radicalizing influences, the other radicalizing influences in the same country often become more extreme in response to that environment. But I’d say, again historically speaking, that rarely makes things better.

But clearly you aren’t a Dum Dum, and must have something in mind when you are saying these things. So maybe that would help me understand your position. Can you tell me what historical case you are thinking of where the average citizenry of a country shrunk away from standing up to fascism and it was left to the anarchist or other far left influences to save the day? The only such occurrences I can think of are times when the far left wing that took over turned out to be just as authoritarian and bad as what they supplanted, and nobody thinks of them as having saved the day in hindsight. As far as I’m concerned authoritarianism is the bad guy of the story of the 20th century and whether that authoritarianism wears a lefty or a righty coat isn’t terribly relevant.

But I’ll wait for your examples you have in mind. Thanks.

4

-Valued_Customer- t1_j4wy1yv wrote

My AOS is philosophy, whereas it sounds like you’re wanting to get into the weeds of history. I know a bit about that, of course, but rather than give you a spotty and sub-Wikipedia recounting of names and dates, I’d feel more comfortable/less embarrassed directing you toward actual historians like Mark Bray, whose Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook came to prominence a few years back for obvious reasons.

It would probably be more productive for me to clarify some things that I think may have been misunderstood: I never said that it’s always and only been the radical Left who “saves the day.” Far from it, in fact: they usually fail! And in some cases, far-left organizations and parties unwittingly assist fascists in seizing power, as the German Communist Party did in the Weimar years by refusing to go into coalition with the more moderate Social Democrats (you can always count on a communist to do the wrong thing for the right reasons).

However, when it comes to taking to the streets to protect communities directly and confront fascists and their propaganda face-to-face, it has practically always been the far left—and anarchists in particular—that has stepped up to the plate. Think about it: when's the last time you saw a group of liberals get in a street fight with fascists? I am certain it's happened before, but there's a reason they're not known for it.

I suspect the reason liberals tend to be largely ineffective against fascism at a certain point is because an ascendant fascist party isn't really possible without institutions that have been significantly weakened or hijacked by bad actors. Since liberals by definition operate within and through those institutions, they are naturally going to be ineffective as fascists amass power.

As for your point about totalitarianism being the Big Bad of the 20th century, I would probably agree in a very limited and provisional sense; the problem with that diagnosis is that "totalitarianism" isn't well-defined. It seems to me that capitalism is every bit as "total" as Soviet communism was, in that it's impossible to live one's life outside of it if you live in the US or any other Western liberal democracy. Like Soviet state socialism, it dictates every facet of life, from who gets what goods (fry cooks ain't driving Teslas) to who gets to live and die (thanks, American imperialism, criminal justice system, and healthcare!). However, because it's "the market" that decides this and not some Soviet apparatchick, it's "better." Maybe so! But better or not, it's not any less omnipresent and inescapable for it.

3

Jimithyashford t1_j4x4qmd wrote

To the whole top portion of your reply, good context on where you are coming from. I'm no slouch on political philosophy myself, but I find history to be more informative. Political Philosophy is only one ingredient, often times running a distant second or third in importance to other ingredients. History tells us the cake that actually came out of the oven. The end result cake is what actually manifests in reality and actually hurts or helps us, and is what really matters. Not that the philosophy side isn't useful and interesting.

​

So, with that in mind, once ounce of historic precedent is worth a 10 pounds of theory and philosophy, at least in my book.

"However, when it comes to taking to the streets to protect communities directly and confront fascists and their propaganda face-to-face, it has practically always been the far left—and anarchists in particular—that has stepped up to the plate."

Again, I simply do not think you are correct on the basic facts.

All of the largest and most effective social demonstrations of the last several generations have involved the far left, sure. Sometimes even had leadership comprised of or at least including the far left, but the effort was carried out by a great many people of varying ideologies.

MLK was arguably among the far left of his day, sure, but the million man march wasn't a million far left radicals. Hell it wasn't even a majority of far left radicals, the participants consisted largely of a mass of somewhat left of center and centrist folks who agreed on that issue, but otherwise likely wildly disagreed on a great many things.

The BLM rallies weren't streets packed with radical anarchists. Radicals were among them sure, but a very large percent of those who attended (not counting as "legitimate" attendees the agitators and miscreants just where to capitalized on the chaos of course), were people who agreed and cared very strongly about THIS issue, but otherwise had a variety of political and ideological leanings.

Since we are talking about the Patriot Front who spun off of other groups in the aftermath of the Unite the Right rally in 2016, let's talk about the counter protest at Unite the Right where that lady got killed. Not a throng of radical anarchist lefties. People of massively varying ideologies, generally left of center, who's common factor was not liking the Alt right.

The same can be said for literally any large scale protesting against some sort of authoritarianism. How about back to the Occupy Wallstreet movements? Disaffected youth mostly, I'd be willing to put $1000 bucks down that if you could dig up a few hundred of the occupy wallstreet protestors as a random sampling and ask them what their political ideology was then, and is now, you'd have a very small percentage self identifying as anarchist, and only somewhat more than average identifying as any variety of far left.

So yeah, in terms of social action against harmful authoritarianism that actually has some efficacy, I think you are flat wrong about there being any particular correlation between participation in that and the "far left".

​

But, I am missing a nuance to your point, and I know I am, and I am getting to it. If what you are saying is that if you have a rally where the nazi guys are carrying sonnenrad shields and paramilitary getups and posturing violently, but not actually carrying out any attempted power grab or violence, which group is mostly likely to show up with their own balaclavas and scarves and bike helmets, and posture violent back at them, and potentially get into a street brawl. Then yeah I agree that's probably gonna be your more radical lefty element. But that's also completely worthless and likely actually makes things worse.

If you are talking about the above scenario but the nazis are actually attempting wide spread violence or a power grab, then it will be the actual police and/or armed forces that put a stop to that, not a biker gang of anarchist college kids.

If the nazis have entered congress and slowly taken political power, then the party that will step up to stop them is the moderate element that occupies the opposing caucus, and the voters who elect them. Once again, not the anarchists.

As far as I can tell, there is no level on which the anarchist response is genuinely meaningful or helpful or anything other than hollow chest thumping unless it is allied to a much larger body of the average citizenry.

All we are then left with is "are the anarchist more likely to bluster back at them?" and maybe I'll grant you that, sure, but that's not really saying much.

And I'm not saying anarchists SHOULDN'T oppose Nazis, of course they should, I am just saying that being an anarchist has nothing to do with it, we all should.

And to your point about totalitarianism, I'll try to keep it short. I didn't say totalitarianism, I said authoritarianism. if I were to be more specific, I'd say nationalist populist authoritarianism especially. Even more especially of the brand centered around a key charismatic figure or dynasty.

And to your last point about totalitarianism not being well defined. I'd encourage you not to get hung up on that. None of this is well defined, and in fact it can't be. What is the far left even? Ask some people it means those who want to abolish currency and live in a network of loosely allied kubutzes. Ask some others and the far left means anyone who thinks universal healthcare might be a good idea. What does anarchism even mean? Ask 20 different anarchists at random and you'll get at least 3 or 4 distinct notions.

I have learned through hard conversations that almost all political labels are a sort of fuzzy contextual bell curve. Is that frustrating and inconvenient? Sure, but that's just how it be.

3