If one looks at Antifa from an objective standpoint - that is, setting aside bias, looking solely at techniques for a moment - wearing masks and hoods, using violence, trying to squelch those who hold opposing views via intimidation and violence - their tactics are quite…well, fascist.
But the group itself would strenuously claim that they are anti-fascist (hence their name) and that they are opposed to Trump, white supremacy, neo-Nazis, everything historically fascist.
Then what they’re saying, in essence, is, “It’s okay to do fascist things, as long as your ideology is anti-fascist.” That it’s ideology and not tactics that make something something. Am I understanding this correctly?
It’s hard to call a leaderless movement with no plan to forcibly restructure the institutions of society as “fascist”. The dictator is the defining characteristic of fascism.
You’re going to have to show that violence is exclusively a “fascist thing.” I don’t see how it is.
Yes, violence is something that is perpetrated by fascist governments, but it’s also been perpetrated by democracies and monarchies. That doesn’t mean that violence is a hallmark tactic of democracies or monarchies.
You’re seeing an overlap on the Venn diagram of “things that fascist governments do” and “things that violent protestors do” and are calling them equivalent.
That’s not just fascist, its reactionary, racist, communist, socialist, the kkk, black panthers, capitalist, just about anybody that wants power through undemocratic means
Fascism is an ideology and that ideology may include tactics. That said, antifa while not exactly fascist, is definitely violent, illiberal, hypocritical, ignorant, and perhaps smelly.
It’s not a strange question. For many years, leftest have described authoritarian practices they don’t like as fascist. You are correct of course, fascism is an ideology rather than a tactic. But I can see how some people might be confused.
But fascism is an ideology about tactics. Fascists have espoused different and even conflicting ideologies. You cannot define fascists by their platform because part of fascism is to embrace any popular idea in effort to concentrate power.
I endorse Umberto Eco’s list of fascist features it is more usefully than just defining anyone you don’t like.
I also don’t see how anyone who has seen or spoken with actual people involved in antifa could confuse them with fascists. They are responding to specific groups and their actions. They are not pushing any specific agenda other than opposing those groups. The often get confused with other black bloc groups that are pushing for more (such as anarchists). But antifa in general are just there to have a forceful response to groups they believe to be fascists. The goal is to not let fascists have control of the streets. They get more negative coverage and harsher police response than fascists groups, but that is not surprising considering the overlap between police officers and membership in fascist groups.
But even Eco’s list of ‘features’ note that Fascism has certain ideals as opposed to just tactics for taking power. Fascism is deeply reactionary - appealing to tradition and rejecting modernism. Blaming liberalism for making the nation weak. Fascism is deeply nationalistic. Most Fascist movements have a cult of the leader and all social institutions are centered around that cult.
Yes, Fascist governments have somewhat different views on economics - the German and Italian fascisms being more corporatist vs. Chilean fascism that seemed far more laissez-faire. But there is more shared political ideology that makes it clear that it is not just tactics involved here.
Putting aside ideology, my understanding is that fascism and authoritarianism are not the same thing. Fascism is just one of many authoritarian ideologies.
Fascism is right wing authoritarianism. Communism is left wing authoritarianism. What groups like black bloc do when they attack people is left wing authoritarianism.
But its still not fascist. Major differences between the left and right wing are their attitudes on egalitarianism. Right wing authoritarians generally use their power to enforce hierarchies and inequality while left wing authoritarians use their power to remove these things (in theory).
So no they aren’t fascist. Theyre left wing authoritarians.
I would call those tactics and not ideology. To me, fascism is a means for seizing and holding power with the only underling ideology being having power at the expensive of others who are framed as lesser.
How are those tactics? Appealing to tradition, rejecting modernism, being anti-liberalism are ideological positions. Fascism is not just right wing authoritarianism. It actually has anti-modernism, anti-liberalism, anti-socialism at its core beliefs. Fascist movements appeal to ancient nationalistic mythos (In Italy it was to the Roman Empire, Germany to Norse myths) in its believe that the nation is the highest good.
Fascism as an ideology gets its foundations from Charles Maurras (though he wanted the head of state to be a monarch), and Georges Sorel. A syncretism of Maurras’ integral nationalism (anti-democratic) with Sorel’s legitimacy of political violence is the underpinning of Fascism and was put together by Enrico Corradini in Italy. Futurism’s focus on youth, technology, and violence also had a major impact on Fascist ideology.
You can see the fusion of Maurras and Sorel’s positions in every Fascist government, from Mussolini’s Italy, Hitler’s Germany, Franco’s Spain, and Pinochet’s Chile.
If one looks at Antifa from an objective standpoint - that is, setting aside bias, looking solely at techniques for a moment - wearing masks and hoods, using violence, trying to squelch those who hold opposing views via intimidation and violence - their tactics are quite…well, fascist.
Only in fantasy land. It’s very tiring how badly people bastardize the word Fascism. You’ll also have to site some sources on Antifa being any more “violent” than any other protest movement that has ever existed, including Ghandi’s. Also, in neither Italy nor Germany were hoods and masks frequently used - participation in Brown Shirt gangs was a mark of “manly” pride and something they did openly.
Then what they’re saying, in essence, is, “It’s okay to do fascist things , as long as your ideology is anti-fascist.” That it’s ideology and not tactics that make something something. Am I understanding this correctly?
No. Things That Fascists Didare notFascist Things. Animal rights are not Fascist or Nazi - Hitler was big on both. Drug decriminalization isn’t Fascist, but Nazi Germany did plenty. Protest movements and political dissent, even violent political dissent, is not specifically Fascist, nor is intimidation. Jesus, have you opened a history book? What do you think happened to Loyalists prior to and during the American Revolution?? Fascist Things would be things unique to, or things otherwise uncommon but prominently featured in, Fascism.
Fascism is a word that was created out of thin air by Benito Mussolini. He gave it a very specific, very direct definition. Any attempt to extend that definition is just a bad-faith argument of the form “x is bad, y is like x, therefore x is bad” and it’s complete intellectual dishonesty. I implore you to stop doing this.