Are "anti-Fascists" The New Fascists? Tolerance The Biggest Intolerance?

[Jocky Balboa]

Discuss:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKDeyuM0-Og

[Ke1t]

Fuck Israel.

[dervish]

Well suppose being truly multicultural would necessitate all cultures being amenable to being truly multicultural. Which I'd suggest is less a paradox, more a fallacy.

[daytripping]

The UAF are the biggest fascists in our Country, they even gave a platform for one of the Soldier killers in London to speak, they love a terrorist.

[Ke1t]

The UAF are the biggest fascists in our Country, they even gave a platform for one of the Soldier killers in London to speak, they love a terrorist.

 

What do they do that qualifies them as Fascist?

[Jonty]

What do they do that qualifies them as Fascist?

 

Try to silence people who do not hold the same opinion as them.

[daytripping]

Try to silence people who do not hold the same opinion as them.

 

100% spot on.

[fatjim]

100% spot on.

 

Fascist

noun

1.

a person who believes in or sympathizes with fascism.

2.

( often initial capital letter ) a member of a fascist movement or party.

3.

a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.

adjective

4.

Also, fa·scis·tic /fəˈʃɪstɪk/ Show Spelled [fuh-shis-tik] Show IPA . of or like fascism or fascists.

Fascism

noun

1.

( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

2.

( sometimes initial capital letter ) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.

3.

( initial capital letter ) a political movement that employs the principles and methods of fascism, especially the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

Glad to have cleared that up. Thread closed.

[amancalledbuck]

LOLOCAUST!!!

[spamspamspam]

Just another label to be overused by governments and press to make everyone conform.

[Jonty]

Try to silence people who do not hold the same opinion as them.

 

 

 

Fascist

Glad to have cleared that up. Thread closed.

 

[fatjim]

 

am I a government?

[amancalledbuck]

am I a government?

Nah, but I bet you're a state.

[Jonty]

Nah, but I bet you're a state.

 

[fatjim]

Nah, but I bet you're a state.

fuck yea.

[Ke1t]

So then I'm reading this as 'not like Fascists at all, but maybe something else entirely.'

[Dal Riata Don]

I think it's misleading to band the term fascist around. It will mean differing things to different people depending on their historic reference to the term.

 

It's meaning has altered over time, I believe, just as society and the political landscape have changed.

[Jonty]

So then I'm reading this as 'not like Fascists at all, but maybe something else entirely.'

Nah there are quite a lot similarities between anti fascists and fascists, just they are both too dumb and arrogant to realise it.

 

Neither has respect for democracy for example.

[Ke1t]

Nah there are quite a lot similarities between anti fascists and fascists, just they are both too dumb and arrogant to realise it.

 

Neither has respect for democracy for example.

 

There were/are a huge number of similarities between the Communists and the Fascists of the 1930s and 40s, but as far as philosophy was concerned they were at the extreme ends of the political spectrum.

 

Anti fascists might be dicks (in some people's minds) but whatever else they are they're not fascists.

 

The funny [funny haha and funny peculiar] thing about it is that those who label Anti-Fascists as Fascists are, themselves, ordinarily far, far closer to the Fascist end of the spectrum than the Anti-Fascists, as a matter of course. It's also funny to hear Anti-Fascists referred to as Fascists in a derogatory way, as though Fascism is a bad thing, by those who are actually more closely associated with Fascism.

 

For my own part I go with Mussolini's preferred interpretation of Fascism. And he would know better than anyone else what a Fascist is.

 

..and Anti-Fascists.... they're not Fascists. Nor is Atheism a religion, nor baldness a hair colour.

[Dal Riata Don]

There were/are a huge number of similarities between the Communists and the Fascists of the 1930s and 40s, but as far as philosophy was concerned they were at the extreme ends of the political spectrum. I like to imagine the political spectrum as an incomplete circle lying horizontally whose ends almost touch. In this way the far right and far left are very close at the respective left and right ends but are by definition different entities.

 

 

 

For my own part I go with Mussolini's preferred interpretation of Fascism. And he would know better than anyone else what a Fascist is. Can you elaborate on this as I'm not familiar at all with him or his mandates?

[fatjim]

the dictionary definition of Fascism is proof enough that anti fascists are not fascists.

 

Are we suggesting that being against fascism is a bad thing?

 

A bit disrespectful to those who fought against it in WWII don't you think?

[Jonty]

 

There were/are a huge number of similarities between the Communists and the Fascists of the 1930s and 40s, but as far as philosophy was concerned they were at the extreme ends of the political spectrum.

 

Anti fascists might be dicks (in some people's minds) but whatever else they are they're not fascists.

 

The funny [funny haha and funny peculiar] thing about it is that those who label Anti-Fascists as Fascists are, themselves, ordinarily far, far closer to the Fascist end of the spectrum than the Anti-Fascists, as a matter of course. It's also funny to hear Anti-Fascists referred to as Fascists in a derogatory way, as

though Fascism is a bad thing, by those who are actually more closely associated with Fascism.

 

For my own part I go with Mussolini's preferred interpretation of Fascism. And he would know better than anyone else what a Fascist is.

 

..and Anti-Fascists.... they're not Fascists. Nor is Atheism a religion, nor baldness a hair colour.

When we talk of fascists these days I don't think we are using the term as it was used in the 1930/40's ( fascism was a strange hybrid of left and right afterall) but the modern day interpretation which is a fascist is somebody who is intolerant, racist and xenophobic.

 

The point of the opening post as I read it, was are the "anti fascists" now displaying these same qualities of intolerence? They definitely seem to be, at EDL rally's for example ( and they r a bunch of Fuckwits btw) invariably more people are arrested protesting against the march than participating in it. Or look at the fools heckling Farage in Edinburgh a few weeks back "we don't need your racism up here fuck off back to England you English cunt".

 

Far better to debate with these type of people fairly and show them up for being fuckin imbeciles than to deny them the opportunity to air their misguided views altogether.

[Dal Riata Don]

the dictionary definition of Fascism is proof enough that anti fascists are not fascists. Would you accept that in practice they have similarities such as suppression of media/human rights/ restricted democracy etc.

 

Are we suggesting that being against fascism is a bad thing? Depends what you replace it with.

 

A bit disrespectful to those who fought against it in WWII don't you think? Again, you're contrasting the past with the present and finding them different. Would those who fought in WWII have welcomed the mass immigration onto our shores since the 1950's? Perhaps but it is not known. You could argue that they fought as a nation against another and would have rejected the dilution of our national culture, i.e. their way of life that they defended, or its alteration at least via immigration.

[Ke1t]

 

There were/are a huge number of similarities between the Communists and the Fascists of the 1930s and 40s, but as far as philosophy was concerned they were at the extreme ends of the political spectrum. I like to imagine the political spectrum as an incomplete circle lying horizontally whose ends almost touch. In this way the far right and far left are very close at the respective left and right ends but are by definition different entities.

 

It's funny, but that's exactly how I think of it. Both ends, regardless of political agenda, appear to (in practical if not theoretic terms) insist upon stamping out opposition, silencing dissent, complete control of population, and total control of state media. The means seem to parallel, regardless of the ends to which those means are directed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

For my own part I go with Mussolini's preferred interpretation of Fascism. And he would know better than anyone else what a Fascist is. Can you elaborate on this as I'm not familiar at all with him or his mandates?

 

His philosophy was, in simple terms (and stripping out the obvious stuff), the state government and the corporate world as a united and co-operative entity. Not necessarily one single body, but each working for the benefit of the other. It's a philosophy denied by the right, based on it not having been written down... that's not much of an argument, however, when you see that in practical terms the Fascist governments maintained, and worked closely with. the private sector while suppressing the Trade Unions, Meanwhile under Communism, state industry and commerce was nationalised and held as state property.

 

This is why people who called Bush and Blair 'Fascists' were spot on, as far as I was concerned.

 

There you had state government operating a policy mandated by unelected corporate entities, not least Halliburton and the major oil corporations. In fact the link between government and the oil corporations went to the very top, the Bush's being a Texas oil family, with century old ties to the oil industry. It was no coincidence that under the 'command' of an oil family the biggest threat to world peace just happened to be a country floating on a sea of oil. Actual civil policy took a back seat to the advancement of corporate wealth during the Bush years... so while the economy went to shit the inner-circle corporations flourished.

[Dal Riata Don]

 

 

Far better to debate with these type of people fairly and show them up for being fuckin imbeciles than to deny them the opportunity to air their misguided views altogether.

Fantastic post and exactly what Orwell said after going to one of Mosely's rallies.

 

+1.

[Dal Riata Don]

It's funny, but that's exactly how I think of it. Both ends, regardless of political agenda, appear to (in practical if not theoretic terms) insist upon stamping out opposition, silencing dissent, complete control of population, and total control of state media. The means seem to parallel, regardless of the ends to which those means are directed.

 

 

 

His philosophy was, in simple terms (and stripping out the obvious stuff), the state government and the corporate world as a united and co-operative entity. Not necessarily one single body, but each working for the benefit of the other. It's a philosophy denied by the right, based on it not having been written down... that's not much of an argument, however, when you see that in practical terms the Fascist governments maintained, and worked closely with. the private sector while suppressing the Trade Unions, Meanwhile under Communism, state industry and commerce was nationalised and held as state property.

 

This is why people who called Bush and Blair 'Fascists' were spot on, as far as I was concerned.

 

There you had state government operating a policy mandated by unelected corporate entities, not least Halliburton and the major oil corporations. In fact the link between government and the oil corporations went to the very top, the Bush's being a Texas oil family, with century old ties to the oil industry. It was no coincidence that under the 'command' of an oil family the biggest threat to world peace just happened to be a country floating on a sea of oil. Actual civil policy took a back seat to the advancement of corporate wealth during the Bush years... so while the economy went to shit the inner-circle corporations flourished.

Thank you for the informative and considered reply.

+1.

[Ke1t]

When we talk of fascists these days I don't think we are using the term as it was used in the 1930/40's ( fascism was a strange hybrid of left and right afterall) but the modern day interpretation which is a fascist is somebody who is intolerant, racist and xenophobic.

 

The point of the opening post as I read it, was are the "anti fascists" now displaying these same qualities of intolerence? They definitely seem to be, at EDL rally's for example ( and they r a bunch of Fuckwits btw) invariably more people are arrested protesting against the march than participating in it. Or look at the fools heckling Farage in Edinburgh a few weeks back "we don't need your racism up here fuck off back to England you English cunt".

 

Far better to debate with these type of people fairly and show them up for being fuckin imbeciles than to deny them the opportunity to air their misguided views altogether.

 

I disagree that 'debating' against violent groups is the best way forward.

 

For one thing your typical EDL supporter is intellectually incapable of even understanding the argument, let alone capable of contributing a cogent rebuttal. I'm sorry, but that's the truth... if it offends anyone then, fuck it, get smarter members than the be-Flight-jacketed, Neo-NAZI skinheads who typically attend 'rallies'.

 

Because of this gap between the two sides, reasoned debate is no valid middle ground. The best way to deal with the EDL is to arrest them when they become violent, as they inevitably will.

[fatjim]

should we tolerate fascism though?

 

invariably they will show themselves up as imbeciles but also if you given them a platform to spout their bile then it legitimises their ill thought out ideas that are based on misinformation. your average moron who believes we will be over run in no time swallows that nonsense then spouts it on here as if it is based on facts.

[Ke1t]

should we tolerate fascism though?

 

invariably they will show themselves up as imbeciles but also if you given them a platform to spout their bile then it legitimises their ill thought out ideas that are based on misinformation. your average moron who believes we will be over run in no time swallows that nonsense then spouts it on here as if it is based on facts.

 

I think we should tolerate ANY and ALL philosophies until they become a problem.

 

When they become a problem you incarcerate them.

 

If some young lads want to shave their heads and throw out Roman salutes then let them.... when they start assaulting people, as Tommy Robinson did, and will again, throw his arse in jail for a few years.

[Dal Riata Don]

I disagree that 'debating' against violent groups is the best way forward.

 

For one thing your typical EDL supporter is intellectually incapable of even understanding the argument, let alone capable of contributing a cogent rebuttal.

Agreed, but they are beyond reach. Is it not the common person who, swayed by a negative view of the current political middle ground who then drifts into support of the far right if only at the ballot box that the debate should reach?

Because of this gap between the two sides, reasoned debate is no valid middle ground. The best way to deal with the EDL is to arrest them when they become violent, as they inevitably will.

Is the middle ground not in the political center i.e. the center-left and center-rights claim to reflect the views of the majority and by this claim, the power to debate them?