Well, we might be wrong. I don’t believe I am, nor generally does anyone associated with Antifa, but we looked at history and saw that peaceful protests rarely work and violent protest sometimes does. We try to limit our damage to property (and are generally successful) to point out how people get more upset about smashing windows than shooting people.
For every ghandi, there are the diggers, and the occupy movement, and the dapl protests.
Like I mentioned before, I think everyone would prefer to use the tactics of the NSK instead, but we just don’t believe that would be effective here, not to mention nationalism leaves a bad taste in many mouths.
You’re kidding, right? The right wing has been demonizing Antifa for years. They don’t fear Antifa; they see Antifa as a convenient scapegoat. They use the presence of Antifa to justify the broad-brush claim that liberal protesters in general are violent, and umbrella guys go around fabricating violence to blame on Antifa/protesters. Antifa gives the right wing a label to demonize.
Which is not to say that change can’t be instigated by civil insurrection. But I’m not seeing the avenue in this case. You’re not going to scare the government into changing, and you’re not going to shame the government into changing. You’re highly unlikely to do enough damage to structurally impede the government’s operation. (Particularly without getting the military shoved down your throat.) The most obvious approach would be to achieve the support of the masses for a militant overthrow, but I think too many americans have Netflix for you to muster enough support to properly man the barricades.
Which is not to say I can’t be wrong about this, but I really don’t see how violent protest has more positive consequences than non-violent protests. It’s very, very clear that the fascistic elements of society prefer it when liberal protesters are violent, after all.
I’m not saying that antifa is following exactly the model that brought down Mussolini, and apologies for any lack of clarity. Rather, I’m saying that their use of hit-and-run attacks on the government are much closer to what brought down actual fascism than are Gandhi’s strategies.
Hmm… The tactics that actually brought down fascism were the combined industrial and military might of the USSR, USA, UK, etc. Emphasis on industrial. Terrorizing old ladies using walkers and sneaking people with bike locks has a counterproductive effect on actual so-called fascism. Hiding in a few sympathetic locales and only acting when the police are neutered and numbers are 3-1 on one’s side are also not the trademarks of an outnumbered,plucky resistance doing virtuous work.
Oddly enough, NOVA had a program recently called “The Violence Paradox”. It examines how violence has been lessening in humanity, and explores what that means, how it’s defined, etc. But what’s really relevant to this comment is that the program makes the claim (starting about 1:03:25) that the success rate for nonviolent mass movements is about twice as successful as violent mass movements. (See 1:04:36.) They refer to research by Erica Chenoweth.
And it’s what undercuts your message.
Except it’s not insurance companies that pay, it is the taxpayers. Taxes fund the repairs/reconstruction and replacement of equipment and facilities.
Trump, Mr. “There were good people on both sides,” certainly seems that way. On the other hand, Antifa activists certainly do their share to play into his hands: advocating destruction, and violence - yes, throwing rocks and water bottles and Molotov cocktails at police officers, or initiating violence against white supremacists. That “by any means necessary” business.
It’s not speaking against wanting to fight fascism, it’s speaking against the tactics of destruction and violence.
We’re not ignoring your message, you are not communicating your message. Destroying police cars and smashing storefronts does not say “human life is more important that property rights”. Rather, most people see the destruction as a stepping stone to violence against people. Destruction for destruction’s sake, and feeding the looting and “I got mine” ideology. If your message is that the police are too overbearing, resorting to violence and destruction just justifies their need for riot gear and using tear gas, pepper balls, and rubber bullets, riot shields and batons.
But Antifa is not an organization, it is simply a label that only has one common meaning, opposing fascism by any necessary means. That includes the black-bloc violence, doesn’t it? How are we conflating anything when it’s the people in the movement who advocate for it?
It may be a tiny subset of their activity, it is nevertheless the critical element they stress. “Again, a willingness to resort to property damage is what makes Antifa distinct:”. “the tie that binds for anti-fascists is to fight fascism by any means necessary, including violence.”
All of that is laudable. Violence and destruction is not.
This is where I think the OP is in error. Historically, fascism has not been instigated by a government announcing “we are adopting fascism effective tomorrow morning”. It’s been a pattern of behavior that often includes armed bands of militants and paramilitaries who act in the interests of the regime, and in the interest of fascism, though outside the color of law. Thus the regime has plausible deniability. The regime isn’t going to reign in the violence of these actors, hence if nobody is willing to bring violence to bear against them, then they will prevail. That is the philosophy of Antifa as I understand it. It is specifically about using violence to counter fascist elements of violence.
The anarchist/black bloc strategy is something different. It’s more about sending an expression of rage. If fascists show up, those are excellent targets of rage. So are cops, so are glass windows of retail stores, it doesn’t really matter. I think there are very narrow and specific times when this is appropriate, especially when all other avenues are exhausted. But in truth, most often this is just another example of people who want to see the world burn, rationalizing it by saying they’re opposing other people who want to see the world burn.
Antifa and black-bloc anarchists aren’t the same thing, historically speaking. But unfortunately the regime in power finds it convenient for them to be the same thing, and the people opposing the regime sometimes find it empowering to conflate the tactics. I think that’s unfortunate.
Unless the OP is secretly Franklin Roosevelt - and I’m going to go out on a limb here and say he’s not - then overthrowing fascists by means of a world war isn’t within his power.
So I’d recommend he stick with something that’s achievable and effective. Breaking windows won’t overthrow Trump. Nonviolent protest might.
Since the window-breaking began, Minneapolis has removed police from schools and is considering defunding the police department. LA is removing huge amounts of money from the police department. Obama has given a major speech in support of police reform and gotten lots of mayors to sign on to police reform.
Overthrowing Trump is what we’re trying for in November. Meanwhile, civil unrest is drawing international attention to police violence in the US. Unless you’re far more active in this issue than you’ve previously let on, your scolding of people who ARE trying to make change doesn’t carry much weight.
So your thesis is that broken windows have been a necessary factor in bringing enough scrutiny on police action to cause the government to rein them in. From this it can be concluded that you think that peaceful protests alone would not have garnered sufficient press attention. Is that what you’re trying to argue?
Or perhaps you’re floating the argument that breaking the windows and other criminal acts inspired the police to be more violent in their dealings with non-violent protesters, resulting in negative press attention for them. In which case the thesis would be that it’s desirable for non-violent protesters to get gassed, beaten, shot, and/or killed, in order to raise awareness. Desirable enough that it’s okay to do this - put innocents into harm’s way - to meet your political ends.
Which would not exactly be an incorrect perspective, though I don’t really see how one could do it and maintain the moral high ground.
Black Lives Matter has engaged in peaceful protests for at least four years now, and the peaceful protests didn’t achieve, in four years, what’s been achieved in this past week.
I’m going to ignore your super-ugly twisting of my observation in your second paragraph, because it doesn’t deserve a response. If you double down on it, it still won’t.
Yes. David Dorn was a willing participant. He went in trying to save people, and was killed. He knew that death was a possible outcome. Is there any reason to think that the looting he was trying to stop started with violence from antifa?
George Floyd was going about his daily business and had no reason to think that his life would end that day.
John Kass, columnist for the Chicago Tribune wrote about Dorn yesterday, with the headline “Will anyone take a knee”.
This gets to the heart of the matter. This statement is where I ABSOLUTELY break from the columnist. Dorn was a (retired) police officer. He put his life in danger every day, willingly. For that, I give him all the credit and respect in the world. Putting your life in danger for others is a tremendously selfless act. It does not, however, give you carte blanche to break the law yourself. I don’t think Dorn broke any laws; I certainly don’t want to imply that he did. We will all mourn him and his sacrifice. However, police officers who die in the line of duty in this country end up with parades. Funeral processions with other law enforcement officers last for miles. Police officers get recognition for saving lives - they get their “knee”. The demonstrations and violence is because they are given special treatment when they break the laws themselves, putting others lives in danger. antifa did not start the violence here; they are a convenient boogieman for those in authority that don’t want change.
Are you proposing that aside from the window breaking, the level of protests raised by Black Lives Matter (and whoever else) has been constant for the last four years through the present moment? Because if that’s not true your argument relies on a false equivalence.
Blah blah blah. It remains a fact that if violent protest is more effective than non-violent protest, if it is, it’s more effective for a reason. Let’s ponder the possible reasons, shall we?
Breaking windows scares the government into thinking that it’s about to be overthrown and it capitulates in fear.
Breaking windows makes people realize that the government values property, and this somehow is a) news, and b) makes the government capitulate somehow.
Breaking windows gets lots of press attention (about how protesters are criminals and monsters), and based on that the populace loves the protesters and the government capitulates in response to public opinion.
Breaking windows and being violent inspires the police to respond in kind against the people breaking windows, generating a lot of press attention (about how the police are heroically stopping vandals and other criminals) and based on that the populace hates the police and the government capitulates in response to public opinion.
Breaking windows and being violent inspires the police to respond in kind against innocent protesters who are NOT doing criminal acts, generating a lot of press attention (about how the police are beating up innocent people) and based on that the populace hates the police and the government capitulates in response to public opinion.
I’ll let you come up with your own responses (or alternate theories), but I’ll just say that it’s pretty clear that the racists and umbrella men of the world want the sort of press attention in outcomes 3 and maybe 4, specifically because it doesn’t result in the populace siding with the protesters.
To my own list I’ll add a sixth possible reason why violent protests could be more effective than non-violent ones:
The broken windows (and damaged cars, and exploded buildings) represent a sufficient financial cost and general inconvenience that the government capitulates just to make the annoyance go away.
This, along with reasons 1 and 5 (ie: the non-stupid ones) are all possible answers, as are the anticipatory versions thereof (where the government foresees a risk of overthrow, inconvenience, or bad optics, and capitulates early to avoid it). Which reasons apply to any specific violent protest/insurrection/rebellion will vary based on circumstances. Which means the next question is, which causes do you think will be having effect regarding the current protests in America. I’ll start - I don’t think the federal or state governments fear being overthrown by Antifa. (Bunker Boy possibly excepted.)
When you practice non-violent protest and the police show up to break up the protest, the public watches and says “It’s terrible the way those police officers are brutalizing people who were doing nothing wrong. I really sympathize with those protesters.”
When you practice violent protest and the police show up to break up the protest, the public watches and says “It’s terrible the way those protesters were breaking windows and looting store. I really sympathize with the police officers.”
Which response do you think helps an authoritarian government gain popular support?
And it doesn’t matter if ninety percent of the protesters were acting peacefully. Once some people began breaking windows and looting stores, it became a violent protest and everyone in the crowd became part of a violent protest. One criminal outweighs a hundred non-violent protesters in the public eye.