Far-right "Proud Boys" filmed beating protesters in New York - Polidicks

This is true for many non "state capitalist" countries as well. You even gave examples yourself. Again, state owned corporations do not "dominate" . Funnily enough you actually described Nazi Fascism. I wonder how many people in the US would actually like the idea of Fascism if they were told the economic strategy it employs. It's why Fascism has often been described as a "Halfway Socialism". The only real major difference is that in Socialism the government owns the business outright while in Nazi Fascism the privately owned businesses are 100% controlled by the state, the "owner" just has the job of figuring out how to do what the state wants. Both systems fail because capitalism is far better at responding to supply and demand than any single government unit trying to control an economy.

I'm a little late to the argument, but have you previously defined what you consider fascism?

This is true for many non "state capitalist" countries as well. You even gave examples yourself. Again, state owned corporations do not "dominate" . you're right, but what makes them different is that they dont have the authority to control the entire free market, canada is not a command economy. they have to make a case in court or influence other markets via taxation and regulation rather than outright change things. Again, state owned corporations do not "dominate" . that's because they arent state owned, their resources and market are state owned. if you're a mining company in the US, you control your product and can distribute it amongst the highest bidders the federal government has no say in what you distribute or where unless they make a case or buy it from you directly. if you're a mining company in china, you dont control your product and you distribute it based on what the state owned market deems necessary. any company deprived of your product simply has no way of fighting against the state unless they demonstrate some sort of need the state has an obligation to fulfill. same goes for land, if you're looking for land in the US, aslong as it's being sold it's fair game, even if it's federal. with a state capitalist economy this is not possible, the state will plop you down wherever they deem necessary. Funnily enough you actually described Nazi Fascism. I wonder how many people in the US would actually like the idea of Fascism if they were told the economic strategy it employs. not entirely true, many of the companies that worked for the war effort of nazi germany were privately owned and existed long before in fact many companies that worked for the war effort of nazi germany also had stable competition. porsche and maybach both manufactured engines for the army. in fact many companies that worked for the war effort continue to exist, porsche, volkswagen, BMW, krupp, mauser, blohm & voss they were controlled mostly because they were gauranteed a lot of success if they were rewarded government contracts to produce things for the war effort. they didnt really control the market, they just controlled the power and therefore could force companies to bend because they were at risk of actually being killed.

Wait what. But they're like a white pride thing, there's no way they aren't a bunch of racists Those things go hand in hand. Anyhow, to repeat my question - Who qualifies as fascist in your opinion? "people who are fascist" doesn't really do it for me. I'd like some examples.

Gavin McInnes literally stated that they're a racist organization, you quoted him saying so in your last nonsequitor.

You have gone directly from talking about antifa to starting a sentence with «they were doing occupy wallstreet.», hence the confusion, if there was any. Maybe I'm not well versed in Occupy WS and more black bloc tactics were used than I'm aware of. I was under the impression that the only reason the event lasted for a while was the civil disobediance part.

You literally didn't answer his question at all. "How would you define thing?" "Well not THIS thing" But please, go on about how you're the only one making actual counter-arguments here.

Does anyone else picture Metist slamming his head into his keyboard, looking at the garbled mess of letters while thinking "this will get those libtards this time."? I do, and it makes his posts more bearable.

I showed how your definition of fascism is false with a video you ignored. Who cares what you think, you're not here to learn, just to regurgitate your propaganda

Antifa found few to clash with in Washington, and harassed repor.. https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2018/08/he_brought_an_american_flag_to.html It would be one thing if these were just isolated incidents, but this just seems like par for the course from what I’ve seen so far. Throwing insults at me only shows how desperate some of you are. Attempting to justify misplaced violence against innocent bystanders just because you share a common viewpoint. Fucking incredible. Just because people should fight fascism doesn’t mean they should also get a free pass absolving them of all responsibility when their actions harm innocent bystanders. There comes a point where too much collateral damage harms your overall efforts, and I believe the actions taken by people under the banner of antifa has crossed this threshold several times over. It would be better for everyone to cut their losses and find a new tactic/banner to identify under because thisone clearly isn’t working and attracts all the wrong kind of attention.

Whether you are right or wrong, it would help when saying these are not isolated incidents to link, instead, to reports and statistics on the significance of this violence and the frequency with which it occurs, rather than, well, isolated incidents

Top tier thread. I never thought I'd see Godwin's law applied to Bernie fucking Sanders, of all people - but at this point in Facepunch's history I shouldn't be surprised. This is what happens when moderators aren't allowed to ban people for trolling and shitposting.

It's not organized. It's not gonna stop. There will be mistakes, there will be unecessary violence. But this isn't happening for no reason - antifa might be a necessary "evil" to keep a greater evil in check. Today we see literal nazis marching and spreading their propaganda. That is more dangerous than antifa ever will be.

Claiming that even a small public gathering of fascists is a threat to freedom lmao any gathering of fascists are a threat to public freedom. And god damn what a loaded article

Just to back you up on this https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/896884949634232320

That's not true and never has been. From its inception it's never been separate from the far-left, which has always had an early and leading role in anti-fascism. Antifa's insignia is straight out of the KPD and many major WW2 partisan resistance movements (French, Yugoslav, Italian, Greek) were communist and their momentum directly translated into postwar political strength (France and Italy having the largest communist parties in postwar Europe, Greece's resistance movement bleeding over into a powerful postwar communist movement that led to a civil war, etc). This is because fascism was so heavily conditioned by the need for a response to the far-left, and it formulated itself to compete for the same squeezed demographics and, as a result, became a mass movement accordingly. Liberals and social-democrats were alien to this rivalry. Anti-fascism was not and still isn't something the center-left and far-left bind together under, because the center-left exists electorally, represents more middle class people, and otherwise has no need to find relevance by beating up another fringe ideology. The two didn't bind together in the 30s, liberals and other centrists rejected the anti-fascist popular or united fronts at that time and instead viewed the right as a lesser threat, and they won't bind together today. This is because the destruction of the labor movement, postwar prosperity, and the rise of 'neoliberalism' and globalization has damaged the far-left so much. Same with the far-right, the triumph of liberalism largely destroyed both. Because of those changes, there is more incentive for a retreat into and monopolization of what relevant spaces are left. We apply that belief to the far-right and free speech protests or a Milo/Shapiro campus visit exactly to justify antifa, so I don't see why we don't do it here with anti-fascism. We especially shouldn't since anti-fascism has hardly any liberal history, whereas opposition to progressivism does. The only reason there is any confusion on this is because of a unique Western dissonance over far-left and far-right, a product of being insulated from the former for much of the 20th century, mixed with the center-left having lost so many offices leading up to 2016 and the Democratic candidate failing to carry the Obama coalition. This thread's discussion has gotten nowhere because we live in a time of change and dynamism, and nobody can agree on who represents what. Is the far-left and far-right evolved, or is it a case of "first as tragedy, then as farce"? Is it reactionary to oppose 'idpol', or is it just the liberal thing to do? Is nationalism limited to fascists, or is there a legitimate conservative form of it that has a place in democracy? People can't even agree on socialism vs state capitalism let alone the above, so it's not surprising the thread hasn't gone anywhere.

I have a simpler explanation: The discussion went nowhere because certain posters were so dense that they resemble slabs of concrete.

it's nesto. We have to lower the standards or right-wing posters won't be able to participate.

They're loud and they're proud but probably not in the way they wanna be going for

Antifa is an umbrella term, it doesn't necessarily mean just the people under the Antifascist-Action/Antifaschistische Aktion banner. I'm pretty sure the liberals and centre-left of the Iron Front and other groups, of all their opponents, targeted fascists and Nazis in particular.

Have you by any chance heard of the Eiserne Front? They were one of the major Antifa groups in Germany in the 1930s. They were founded by the SPD and the Schwarz-Rot-Gold alliance of center-left parties, and their symbol, which is still in use with modern Antifa groups, represents striking against the three enemies of democracy: monarchism, communism, and fascism. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/76/Antifascist_Circle_BW.svg/1280px-Antifascist_Circle_BW.svg.png http://www.naumburg-geschichte.de/bilder/1932/wahlennov.jpg This poster says "Against Papen (leader of the monarchists), Hitler (I think you know who he is), Thälmann (leader of the German communists) vote social democrat."

It's not and never has been. In history, it only ever served to eclipse the center. The rivalry between the far-left and far-right pushes out social-democrats/liberals and conservatives alike as their conflict escalates and destabilizes democracy. This is basically what happened in Germany from the great depression onward. You can see this with Reichsbanner and Iron Front. They were always on the periphery of Weimar's street battles and general upheaval since it was driven by the two poles in the communists and fascists (as well as some monarchists at the start). The social-democrats were only tenuously aligned to left's cause in the 20s and 30s because of a shared voter base and historically sharing the same two Internationals. But, after the war-related breakup of the Second International that birthed the modern far-left and the 1918 revolution that followed, they were at odds thanks to SPD opposition to various strikes and revolts (repressing that revolution in such a way as to enable the Freikorps which preceded the far-right, opposing the cuno strikes and hamburg revolt, refusing mass strikes in the chaos of 1932-33, etc.), the KPD in general, and sometimes their own rank and file since they could slip into the growing bipolar conflict and side with the far-left (so yes, some of Iron Front's base did end up prioritizing one over the other, but in a way that supports my argument). That happened especially as street battles proliferated in 1930 onward as the centrist coalition collapsed, the communists and nazis grew in parliament, and the SPD was in decline and in the shadow of the emergency government led by Hindenburg, who they and other centrists had supported in presidential elections. Hindenburg ultimately did not stop the rise of fascism, obviously, in part because of the paralyzing nature of the rising far-left and far-right. This, mixed with liberal-democratic inertia towards helping anti-fascist causes such as in Spain, refusing alliances with the USSR as late as 1939, nazism taking inspiration from America's own racial laws and eugenics fetish of the progressive era, and American Cold War policy rehabilitating fascists and right-wing dictators (Franco, Greek junta, Syngman Rhee, Allende, etc.) means antifa is founded on a historical lesson that does not lend very to liberal and centrist conclusions. As a result, the three crosses has no independent meaning on the left. It's interchangeable with other far-left symbols and does not signal a pro-democratic third camp like it did in Germany, probably because the greatest lesson is that this camp failed and ultimately helped divide the left the entire time. So this, mixed with what I said about the destruction of the Old Left in tandem with the decline of Keynesianism, social-democracy, and the USSR meaning an anti-fascist movement is among the last space for left-wing radicals who at this point seek a general rebirth, means I have no reason to believe your idea that antifa is an 'umbrella'. This is all supported by my experiences on the far-left.

this is why we need faschism. hitler had the leaders of the proud boys of his time executed.

i cant wait for them to come protest in portland again so we can drive them the fuck out of town in their literal shortbuses they arrived in again

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/neggzq/the-nypd-has-started-arresting-proud-boys-involved-in-violent-manhattan-brawl

"The founder of the far-right group the Proud Boys said on Friday that he was arranging the surrender of several members whom the police are seeking in connection with a violent brawl outside a Republican club in Manhattan last weekend ... ... Though it was unclear how many might face charges, Mr. McInnes said the rest would soon be in custody. “They are going to be in the Tombs,” he said." McInnes is telling them to turn themselves in so they're more likely to get minor charges. That footage makes the police look pretty uh.. casual about breaking up the assault but McInnes has ground to stand on if his men faced charges and jail-time. Going in willingly and lawered up lets them dodge a more serious domestic terrorism investigation and play it off like, "oh we just got a little rowdy sorry we'll pay our fines and be on our way." while at the same time allowing (as McInnes puts it, their friends) the NYPD to say, "We didn't just do nothing, look! Arrests! Charges!"

A one party government system without democratic vote and a government controlled economy. But it didn't. Your video in no way explained how The Proud Boys are Fascist. Do they believe in a single party non democratic system with a fuhrer and controlled economy? No. They aren't even racist (or at least the leader openly is against it). Thanks for proving my point.

It explained how your definitions are wrong though good going failing to even recognize what I was arguing did you even watch it do you still think “national socialism” is socialism or do you have an accurate picture now

Explain how it isn't a movement while the things you don't like are. The first definition of Antifa that comes up calls it one, they have a uniform and a specific flag. Your excuse for why they can't be critized for their stupidity is pathetic. No, if anything it will make more people go to the right as a reaction. They are just a bunch of violent idiots who attack whoever they don't like. Source?

Hey, you're being illiterate I posted that video to disprove your definitions of National socialism and socialism. It does exactly that from a far more informed perspective than you have even remotely demonstrated. But you're on a tangent trying to prove something that I didn't even state because you're too mad to even read, let alone form a coherent argument lol