Auto-SummaryThis forum post argues against blanket criticism of antifascist groups (antifa), emphasizing that antifa is a decentralized movement primarily focused on opposing fascism. The author clarifies that antifa's tactics, including physical confrontation and the "no platform" principle, are central to its praxis and have been successful in disrupting fascist organizations across Europe and the US. While acknowledging the violent actions sometimes associated with antifa, the post stresses that the far-right's violence is far more dangerous. It encourages constructive criticism and understanding of antifa's role in countering rising fascist elements in American politics. The author concludes by defending antifa's necessity in the face of growing far-right influence, drawing parallels to historical antifascist movements.
shivas.wisdom said:
Remember, antifascist action (antifa) is a decentralized entity centred around militant resistance to fascism. You could possibly understand 'antifa' to serve the function of an early #hashtag; using a collective label to describe autonomous groups made cohesion and solidarity simpler in an era before social media. But it is wrong to understand antifa as a cohesive entity operating off of a single playbook.
It is fair to criticize individual actions claimed by antifascists, but fairly ridiculous to oppose the premise of antifascism in principle; and that's what you're doing when you attempt to blanket criticize antifa, because the only thing that truly unites antifascist activists everywhere is our opposition to fascism. For example, do you feel antifascists fighting against ISIS in Rojava are subject to these criticisms of yours?
Yes, violence plays its character throughout these stories of antifascist resistance. Physical confrontation is not only a common part of antifa organizing, but is central to its praxis. The antifa project itself is founded on a “no platform” principle, which means halting fascist organizing, speech, and public expression through any available means. This tactic is not meant just to create a counter-narrative, but to sever fascist access to any form of speech and to keep militancy as a central tenet. This strategy of organizing has been successful through the early days of the National Front, into the veneer of respectability with the British National Party (BNP), and later into groups like Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West (PEGIDA), the English Defense League (EDL), and the UK Independence Party (UKIP). These nationalist groups were founded through connections between the mainstream political sphere on the one hand, and violent racist street gangs on the other; and antifascist groups, using the "no platform" principal, have had documented success in destroying/preventing these connections.
Antifascist direct action movements like AFA and Red Action have not been fully replicated in the US or Canada. This is not to say, however, that anti-racist organizing has not been successful there; SHARP and RASH toeing up to neo-Nazi skinhead culture in the 90's is a good example, but this was mostly contained within a subculture and did not feature the widespread attention current antifascist action in the USA does. In the US, the racial street terrorists primarily take the forms of various incarnations of the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi skinheads. There is a history of crossover into political movements, notably with organizations like the Council of Conservative Citizens’ connections to the KKK and the American Freedom Party with Golden State Skinheads in California. Those connections are real, but the political organizations they prop up have little to no actual crossover into the general political sphere. This is a large difference from Europe where fascist parties hold representative positions; and probably a large reason behind the noticeable difference between antifascist action taking place in N. America and the rest of the world.
What you are seeing happening in American politics today, though - and this is well documented - is that openly fascist elements are seeing widespread acceptance among the less extreme members of the right to a degree not seen before. It has reached the point to where the far-rights candidate of choice now holds power in the USA; and what you are seeing is the antifascist resistance rise in response. Someone who is comfortable marching with open neo-Nazis is not convinced that antifascists are the real fascists when they get punched in the face later that day; if you are comfortable marching with neo-Nazis, you have already made up your mind.
Remember, statistically it is elements of the far-right who are currently perpetrating the greatest violence (up to and including killings). If the violent actions of antifa (mostly limited to physical assault and harassment) is enough for you to consider a violent reaction towards antifascists as being appropriate, what kind of response does the greater violence of the far-right endorse?
I think it is fair to criticize individuals actions, so that we can better improve our effectiveness. This is especially true when you consider that a large number of people now repping antifa have been only very recently turned on to the concept; no point being arrested for sloppy actions. That being said, you must also remember that the media slant towards antifascist and anarchist organizing is a very heavy one. If your main source of information on an action is through news reports and youtube videos, perhaps it is better to leave the criticism for those with direct experience.
If you want to have a better grasp of what actually constitutes antifascist action, I recommend the documentary "Antifa: Chasseurs de Skins"; a 2008 French documentary on how groups of youth in 1980's Paris generated a backlash against the neo-Nazi skinhead subculture, and by doing so earned themselves the nickname Chasseurs de Skins or ‘Skinhead Hunters’.
Also, antifascists make better music than fascists:
QUOTED FOR THE MOTHERFUCKING TRUTH.
The fact that a number of antifa are a bit of a disgrace, which is mirrored among the fascists, I think in the Reich a lot of neonazis would find themselves on the same one way track to Poland as the antifa, does not negate the fact that their uniting factor is an opposition against fascism.
Antifascism is a movement born out of need to counter upsurging force of fascism, national socialism and other totalitarianism, which is why you also have Antifa fighting ISIS, antifascism is more a form of antitotalitarianism, and Antifa are a riotous autonomous and decentralized branch thereof who are willing to get on the barricades and physically confront and drive back this force of oppression.
That the Shroomery would have a thread devoited to an almost unanymous belittling of antifa is a CRAZY development. Its completely opposed to the values that the community held dear in the early years.
Rallying against antifascists?
I know you got another civil war coming and are ramping up to rage it out in the streets but, really? 
If we have to choose sides between Antifascism and being opposed to Antifascism, I'll choose Antifascism.
 was a very outspoken antifascist, so this is not about left or right, he was more republican than the republican party is today. He would not hesitate to call many Antifa heinous but he had a clear enough view on the force of fascism in history and today, to oppose it.
--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
personal empowerment for the world
Onehomemission.org
truly make a difference
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale, Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Spores for European Microscopy
qman 
Cyrus19 
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
