Talk:Militant anti-fascism

Could someone change this sentence to make it more clear? The word but in the middle makes it sound like the action taken is different than the action suggested by the Communist Party. However, both the suggested and actual action involve the Spanish civil war. What exactly was not done that the Communist Party originally wanted to do? "Initially, the national Communist Party leadership wanted a mass demonstration at Hyde Park in solidarity with Republican Spain, but local party activists argued against this, mobilising the local population with the chalked slogan They shall not pass, taken from the slogan of Republican Spain, No Pasaran."Spylab 14:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab[reply]

Have done (I think). BobFromBrockley 12:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Much better. Now the meaning is clear.Spylab 15:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab[reply]

Antifa refers to both "militant" and "liberal" traditions, particularly outside of the European context with groups like FDB or within the context with stuff like Searchlight. Nobody would deny either of those groups are Antifa, but neither of them organise rallies and are not particularly "militant" in the direct-actionist sense, prefering to work with other grass roots groups who are better at that sort of thing.

This just seems to confuse people, because all around the world there are people who call themselves "antifa" but are not advocates of violence. I personally have no problems with self defense , or community defense, and I would never tell an indigenous or african-american brother not to stand up for his community. But I don't think thats violence, thats self defense. It is possible to be Ghandian,Antifascist, hold strong views about class politics, AND be consistent! Duckmonster (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although Spylab has done a good clean-up job, I am totally unconvinced that there was a need to merge antifa with this article, a merge which was never proposed or discussed either here or at antifa. Surely these are different things? Why shouldn't there be a page on antifa? Antifa is one (perhaps one very important) strand within militant anti-fascism, but not the only one. Arguments for or against merge please? BobFromBrockley 12:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How are they different things? Please explain, because to me, Antifa and militant anti-fascism is the exact same thing. Antifa is just a colloquial term for anti-fascism. It's mostly an in-group term that the general person on the street would never use. And even if it was only one strand within militant anti-fascism, there is not enough differentiating it to warrant a separate article. Spylab 12:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antifa is a term from Northern Europe in the last couple of decades for militant anti-fascists connected to the anarchist, autonomist or sometimes communist scenes, with a strong connotation of a particular subculture or lifestyle (e.g. strong association with the squatting movement and punk music) and a particular ideological flavour (often strong positions on a range of forms of oppression, such as sexism). The term was almost never used, for example, around

anti-globalisation movement. But maybe I'm being pedantic...BobFromBrockley 17:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

This is deceptive this merge, because it states that "liberal" anti-facists are somehow not anti-fascists. This puts a euro-centric spin that excludes us Antifascists from places like Australia that have different traditions. I really wish this could be unmerged, or at least have the liberal anti-fascism (Why is non-violent and research-based antifascism 'liberal' by the way?) merged in, because this is claiming a theoretical position thats not shared outsid eof parts of europe and trying to enforce it outside of that context. Anti-fascists should know better than that! Duckmonster (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of also think that some of this stuff is important too, particularly contrast with

Militant anti-fascism' is a form of

liberal anti-fascism

in the following ways:

• The use of violence. Militant anti-fascists believe in physical confrontation with fascism. The argument is that fascism uses non-legal means and depends for its allure on a physical presence on the streets, and therefore violence is essential to stop it. Militant anti-fascists believe in physical confrontations with fascists. They argue that fascists use non-legal means and depend on a physical presence on the streets, so violence is essential to stop it. W
• No dependence on the state: Where liberal anti-fascists call on the state to outlaw
  citizenry
  . Frequently, militant anti-fascists go further, rejecting any connection with the state as contaminating anti-fascism.
• Orientation to the working class: Militant anti-fascists are generally supporters of a
  anti-capitalist transformation of society as an alternative to fascism, rather than defending the status quo of liberal democracy
  .

BobFromBrockley 12:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I guess all those things are there in current version, more succintly. I'm just attached to my own wording. :) BobFromBrockley 17:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing confusion. Word militant pertains to violence. So, anti-fascists who justify violence are called as militant anti-fascists. mandangi

Twice an editor has changed the opening sentence from "Militant anti-fascism is ... against fascism" to "Militant anti-fascism is ... against perceived fascism." That is not justified or correct. The opening sentence must reflect the topic indicated in the topic. Perhaps specific anti-fascists in certain times and places have targetted people who aren't technically fascists, but that is not the issue to be raised in the first sentence. And if the issue is raised later in the article, it must be backed up by reliable sources (preferably in English). This article is about the ideology of militant anti-fascism as a whole. It is not called "Militant anti-perceived fascism." Spylab 13:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tsk tsk tsk, now you're doing yourself. If these people regularly beat the crap out of people THEY belive are fascists, then obviously the opening line is correct. Unless you can give some reliable sources that the only people getting beaten up by these people are people everyone agree's are fascists, then its obvious the targets are people who AFA and other organisations belive are fascists. Simple as that. Itake 23:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is not about AFA in Sweden or about the actions of specific anti-fascists. It is about the whole topic of Militant anti-fascism, and the opening sentence must reflect that. Also, you greatly misunderstand the concept of onus of proof. It is up to you to provide reliable sources that militant anti-fascists "regularly beat the crap out of people THEY belive are fascists". It is not up to me, or other editors, to provide reliable sources that your claims are not true. Spylab 15:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, its about the entire anti-fascist movement. And the entire anti-fascist movement regurlarly beat the crap out of people they belive are fascists. As there are no references to back up the opening sentence in your edit, you're the one lacking proof again. Itake 17:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I repeat, it is your responsibility to prove with reliable sources that "the entire anti-fascist movement regurlarly beat the crap out of people they belive are fascists." It is not my responsibility to provide references to disprove your controversial and libellous claim. Spylab 18:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That they beat the crap out of people we already know, that is the point of the article. What YOU need to prove is that the people they beat are all universally labeled fascists. Itake 11:47, 5 December 2006

(UTC)

• No, you are the one who has to come up with proof to back up your accusations. That's how the onus of proof works, on Wikipedia, in the legal system and in the media. If you make a claim, you have to support it with evidence. Simple as that. Spylab 11:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. Itake 12:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You're the only one making controversial (and innaccurate) accusations. You are the one who needs proof. I have made no such claims, so I have nothing to prove. Spylab 12:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "fact" that these people would only beat the crap out of universally recognised fascists is controversial, to say the least. Itake 15:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it would be if you could prove it. And again, this article is about the entire militant anti-fascist movement around the world. It is not about your experiences in Sweden. Please stop adding your uncited point of view to this Wikipedia article. The sentence doesn't even make linguistic or logical sense when you keep adding the word perceived in front of the word fascism.Spylab 16:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my tuppence in support of intro as it was. If you add "perceived" here, you need to add it to every single article on anti- anything (e.g. anti-imperialism is against "perceived" imperialism, anti-capitalism is against "perceived" capitalism, etc, which is clearly absurd. Also, militant anti-fascism is distinguished by its use of direct action in general and violence in particular, but I'm not so bothered about that. BobFromBrockley 17:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, if this is what the antifa come up with, this is fucking pathetic. I know them from Germany and they are a violent lot, sometimes organised in a very paramilitary way. Basically, there is some stuff being looked into around who finances the extreme left. Has it been considered that, whatever the intentions of these people, whether it is beating fascists, or just beating people, that the antifa are manipulated, controlled or brainwashed in some way? An example. There are the Antideutschen here in Germany, 100% for Israel, and somehow therefore against Germany. Now, lets be clear, their attitude is a "no matter what" attitude, so does not take into account the difference between the fascist Netynjahu and Yitzak Rabin, a truly great peace-loving statesman. Any comment. —The preceding

Not really, no. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic, but I wouldn't label any Israeli general such as Rabin a "peace-loving statesmen"...

I have removed this link from the list of external links: Antifa India. I did this because the website, of the Anti-Fascist League in India, has little to do with militant anti-fascism as defined in the article, but rather is of an organisation that defines basically all forms of capitalism as fascist. It is, to me, an anti-imperialist rather than anti-fascist site. And certainly not related to the tradition of militant anti-fascism. Am I wrong? BobFromBrockley 16:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BobFromBrockley indentifies himself as Marxist but his views on fascism are non-Marxist and liberal. Imperialism is also related to fascism. Hitler, Musslini and Hideki explicitly upheld imperialism. Antifa League of India didn't say that all forms of capitalism is fascism. They might be thinking that majority of the capitalists uphold fascism directly or indirectly. Marxists should uphold Marxist view against fascism. Other wise, they can be called as liberal anti-fascists.

Edited by sympathiser of Antifa League of India.

Re 219.64.72.78's point. It doesn't matter whether I'm Marxist or liberal, or whether I don't do what Marxists "should" do. What matters is whether a link to an Indian anti-imperialist site is helpful on an encyclopedia page which will be used by people who want to know what militant anti-fascism is. Of course imperialism is related to fascism, and of course Hitler et al "upheld" imperialism. Liberal democracy is also related to imperialism, and liberal democrats like Winston Churchill "upheld" it, but that doesn't make them fascists. Militant anti-fascism, as the article defines it, is about physical confrontation with actual fascists on the street. It is not about denunciations of American foreign policy as Nazi. The website in question is all about the latter. I have looked at the site thoroughly, and found nothing about physical confrontation with actual fascists. That's all. BobFromBrockley 11:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:219.64.72.78, the key word here is the mord "militant", not "anti-fascism". Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BobFromBrockley wrote: Liberal democracy is also related to imperialism, and liberal democrats like Winston Churchill "upheld" it, but that doesn't make them fascists.

Winston Churchill was not much different than Hitler. Fascism is primarily anti-communist ideology. These were views of Churchill on communist Russia, more extreme than Hitler's: "(We must rally against) a poisoned Russia, an infected Russia of armed hordes not only smiting with bayonet and cannon, but accompanied and preceded by swarms of typhus-bearing vermin." -- Quoted in the Boston Review. Once, Churchill even praised Hitler against Stalin. When Hitler planned to attack Britain, Churchill allied with Stalin against Hitler. Hitler targeted Stalin and Russia first and then jews. Hitler killed around 27 millions of Russians in World War II and that number was much higher than the number of jews killed by him. It is the clear evidence to prove that fascism is primarily anti-communist ideology. We need not think that all the fascists identify themselves as fascists by quoting example that Churchill identified himself as liberal democrat. Hungarian fascist Miklos Horthy identified himself as social democrat and he allied with Hitler in World War II though democracy is much different from fascism. Antifa League of India also opposes other quasi-Nazi groups like Sangh Parivar. We need not think that they are primarily anti-American.

• Anonymous editor, your opinion of what
  militant anti-fascism. Spylab 16:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

well, that's your POV of "fascism". On Wikipedia, we follow the definition as outlined in the article on fascism. And this articles deals with militant (see militant) resistance to it. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commintern in the "Third Period" phase of the late 20 & early Thirties defined social democrats and just about everybody else as "social fascists" and refused to work with them, holding that all reformism was designed to prolong capitalism and was therefore "fascist" in bnature. Georgi Dimitrroff's speech to Commintern after the Rechstag Fire reversed this policy for that of the "Popular Front" to form alliances against the rise of fascism. If the CPI continue to designate people like Winston Churchill as fascists, they are continuing with this "Third Period" position, which may have meaning for them, but not really for anyone else. The BJP is perhaps a more appropriate target for Indian anti-fascism.--Streona (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]