Are the 'Anti-Fascists' in the U.S. actually the fascists?


Fascism has no place in modern society. N Korea is possibly the only place clinging to such an idea.


NK isn’t fascist.


Exactly. They’re as close as we can get in modern day.


What about actual fascists.

We have a fascist on the forum.


I disagree with the riots, even though Yiannopoulos is a right prick. Rioting isn’t the way to get across a point in peacetime. If the Civil Rights movement had been violent in nature, American blacks probably wouldn’t have been given equal rights and desegregation till about 1970.

Calling them “fascists” would be inaccurate though, seeing as fascism is an ethnonationalistic ideology. You could say the Berkeley riots were a bit authoritarian in nature, though.

Churchill was also a white Christian supremacist who liked to use chemical weapons. Beware quoting historical figures.


Nah, they’re Stalinist/Juche.


One cannot be a fascist unless they’re of power. We have people who support fascism. It’s like calling a person an authoritarian. Are they the authority or the one under the authority?


Because they oppose hierarchical systems and hatred of others? OK m8.


Influenced by Stalinism yes, but also by fascistic ethno-nationalist ideas which were brought their by Japanese colonial rule. In most respects DPRK represents a fascist state.


.>“Hey are these guys fascists?”


Because no one has ever said one thing and done another, right?


No, because they want to force their beliefs on others through indoctrination and enforce their beliefs with pseudo-militias and riotous behaviour.


Not really, they want to stop people spreading hatred against others by any means, including violence. Whether you disagree or not, using violence to protect others from hatred and scapegoating isn’t fascism lol.


>wants to prevent the spread of hate
>spreads hate

I never said it was fascism.

“Are ‘Anti-Fascists’ Fascist?”


Using violence to silence opposing political opinions is something that fascists do.


You cannot tolerate the intolerant. With your logic Churchill was a fascist for fighting the Nazis.

Well it’s not authoritarian and I wouldn’t even call it extreme. Anti-fascists are generally anarchists who advocate organised self-defence to protect minority communities under threat. Tending towards extreme sure, but I think true extremism is characterised by the advocacy of the initiation of force. The right to self-defence is a pretty commonly accepted idea.


That doesn’t make then fascists.


Not necessarily, but it does make them hypocrites.


Then you are not tolerant.

Are you stupid or blind?

Not only have not given you my idea of what a fascist is, I’ve mentioned than authoritarianism and extremism doesn’t make you a fascist.

Despite holding extremist views, such as attacking anyone they deem a “fascist”, purposely rioting, silencing anyone who opposes then, and politically extreme views such as anarchism, and from the AntiFa I’ve known, also left communism.

It is to the extent of preventing certain ideologies through violence, though it is more mobocratic.

Yet they go one step further in many cases and initiate attacks.

I’m aware.


Tolerance in the social liberal/progressive sense isn’t the idea that everyone can do what they want, it’s the willingness to create a society in which all different cultures, ideas and values can coexist without conflict or discrimination. Those who promote conflict and discrimination are intolerant, and they work against the kind of society tolerant people want to build. If we followed your ideals, we could never have stopped Nazism because anything other than appeasement is ‘intolerant’ of Nazi ideas.

Ok well by your logic Churchill was an authoritarian and an extremist because he wanted to stop Nazism.

[quote=“BingoBongoLand, post:39, topic:109929”]
Despite holding extremist views, such as attacking anyone they deem a “fascist”, purposely rioting, silencing anyone who opposes then,[/quote]

They want to establish organised self-defence for threatened communities, that’s not a popular view but I don’t think it’s an extreme one. It doesn’t go against the established moral framework in which people are allowed to protect themselves when threatened.

Ok they are extreme in a political sense, but not in an authoritarian manner as you first claimed, but by the fact they argue for extreme equality, tolerance and acceptance of others. ‘Extreme’ here doesn’t need to be synonymous with ‘bad’.

They want to defend communities with violence when they are threatened. They don’t want to spread antifascism through violence, the two aims are distinct.

I think these are rare and usually done to individuals who have committed acts of violence or who has been inciting violence. That individual would constitute a dangerous threat to minorities.