So are they disavowing famous antifa like Dwight D. Eisenhower yet? You could make a case that Eisenhower was personally responsible for the deaths of thousands of fascists.
The beaches of Normandy on D-day were full of antifa members…
Your average age of the original antifa is 98 years old - WW2 veterans
You think fascism is that young?
Refer to these comments:
https://lemmy.world/post/37091008/19852007
Then tell me what you think fascism is and we can talk.
Eta: I suspected by this first comment this was going to be a pointless conversation and it was
https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism
Following history, fascism first came about and a named ideology in WW1, not WW2. Whole it brewed and came to a head in ww2, it was first really spearheaded by Italy in WW1 and the early 20th. Which then spread to Germany and was embraced.
Okay, but this is my comment:
Your average age of the original antifa is 98 years old - WW2 veterans
As far as I know, the first people to physically fight against fascism are WW2 veterans. Of course, antifa does not imply only physical fighting, but in context here of the US Govt labeling antifa a violent terrorist organization, it makes sense to bring up the first physical antifa fighters were fighting at the US Govt’s demand against fascism.
Technically the first person to beat the shit out of Gabriele D’Annunzio was the first person the physically fight fascism
Well, I did specify average age, but your comment was funny af
Special mention that person
Again, the original ones would be WW1 vets
WW1 wasn’t fought against fascism. Italy wasn’t fascist then either
From your own linked source above:
fascism, political ideology and mass movement that dominated many parts of central, southern, and eastern Europe between 1919 and 1945
Italy’s fascist movement also began after World War I, although it achieved power in the mid-1920
Fascist parties and movements came to power in several countries between 1922 and 1945
(For context, WW1 ended in 1918)
Although I’m sure many WW1 vets later became antifascists.
Authoritarians misunderstanding history? Who could have thought?
There is probably some nuance between KPD Antifaschistische Aktion, SPD Iron Front, and WW2 Resistance antifa, but none of that is relevant to modern discussions about American Antifa.
The most important thing to note about KPD, SPD, and the resistance during 1930s-1940s is about violent resistance to fascists rising to power. My hypothesis is that political violence is unproductive before rule of law breaks down, but then becomes the only option after rule of law breaks down.
Those who make peaceful protest impossible make violent revolution inevitable
Fuck I’ve grown some serious hate for white Americans since 2016.
What does white have to do with anything? You do realize most people opposing this movement are also white…?
Hating people for their skin color will surely show those racists.
You’re not wrong but seeing as how white Christian nationalism is the driving force behind what we’re seeing right now let’s not pretend like it has nothing to do with anything either. We can’t ignore that aspect.
“Hate” can exist in all colors.
Don’t bring yourself down to the same level as the fascist, friend.
what a racist piece of shit.
edit:
if you don’t have a problem with
Fuck I’ve grown some serious hate for white Americans since 2016.
but have a problem with
Fuck I’ve grown some serious hate for black Americans since 2016.
you might just be a racist piece of shit.
How about a new synonym? Antifa just triggers all the people that didn’t understand what it means. They think it means devil worshipping terrorists or something like that. It’s not winning at this point. Maybe that’s a good thing, 😂.
Just say Against Fascism, and don’t let anyone abbreviate it. When they complain, ask, “are you pro-fascism?”
The problem is that now, they are
Antifa is the modern version of the Soviet kulaks, which was their contemporary version of medieval witches. There are no shortage of historical examples of people making up groups that dont exist in reality to be afraid of, and thereby justify extreme and depraved actions against their countrymen. Anti-facism, anti-communism, or anti-christian, the social justification is pretty much irrelevant. Its all just an excuse for people in power to label anyone they want for execution. Its literally a witch hunt
Founding fathers were antifa
…what?
Fascism as a movement didn’t exist then but if you do want to label people as fascists then the founding fathers, many of whom owned people of other races as “property” and built slavery into the system they created definitely qualify.
I was just joshing. Though, do fascists want to own slaves? When I think of fascism, slave owning is not something that comes to mind.
Nazi Germany built it’s war economy on the backs of slaves. Jews, and political dissidents didn’t all go straight to the death camps; many went to slave labor facilities/camps until the conditions broke them and they were no longer useful.
So maybe not individual slave ownership, but mass state run slave labor absolutely. The end stage fascist economy can’t exist without it.
I have my existence thanks to those forced laborers. They sabotaged production, including the tank shell that didn’t explode when it hit my grandfather’s position back in 1944.
I just don’t think owning slaves equals fascism the way the comment I replied to says.
I was mostly being silly when I made my original comment cause fascism didn’t exist back then. But I do wonder if fascism did exist, just without the name.
But I also don’t think a fascist would create the constitution as it was back then. Free speech, right to privacy, all the rights surrounding justice… Seems like a fascist would be against these things.
I’m definitely unqualified to participate in a debate on what fascism is and isn’t, so if there’s something I’m missing, please let me know as this stuff is very interesting, and Google doesn’t usually help.
I’m just confused what definition of fascism you’re going off of where the British parliament imposing a tax on tea is fascism but people of one race owning people of another race and forcing them to work though beatings and abuse isn’t.
But yes the real answer is that they were neither pro- or anti-fascist because fascism wasn’t a thing. In terms of history, I don’t really think we should label it fascism anytime someone does a bad thing. But if we are going to use it that way then we should do so consistently.
What about the constitution and bill of rights? That honestly feels like something an anti fascist would write to prevent a fascist from taking over.
When I read about fascism, though, it is never about owning slaves. It’s more about how the government treated its citizens/media/economy/etc. Maybe it’s something they did, but owning slaves was not what made them fascist.
It didnt have a name or a clear, written set of ideals until Mussolini coined it; but the sentiments that led to it have existed since the dawn of humanity.
In which case, as I said, the founding fathers were fascists.
Do you think I am disagreeing with you or something?
…But they still very much got rid of the feudal equivalent of a dictator - a king - which is a step in the right direction, especially at the time. Notably many founding fathers were against slavery.
Eg this abolitionist from the 1500s originally was okay with slavery for black people, but not Natives, and then later changed his mind. He was FAR from perfect as an activist or abolitionist, but the steps he did were PROGRESS, and that counts. That you can criticize the past is a good thing, it means society did better.
This is a completely different position from what was originally being argued, which is the absolutely insane position of “The founding fathers were antifascist.” If you want to say, like, “The American Revolution did more good than harm” then sure, whatever, that has nothing to do with what I’m disputing here.
No, it isn’t. Read my first sentence again - they got rid of a monarch, that’s antifascist at its core. That you are ignorant of the people’s history and the people’s movement shows so clearly here.
Ghenghis Khan got rid of many monarchs. Antifascist king?
? Do you not understand why voting matters? A khan is a type of king - Ghenghis Khan fighting other monarchs is not the same as setting up a system of governance for people to self govern with no king. Again, I don’t think tbey went far enough, just like Bartholome de Las Casas didn’t go far enough - but progress is progress. It was in the right direction.
My point is that not everyone who opposes kings is an antifascist. There’s lots of reasons why someone might oppose a king, for example, they hold a lot of power, and tend to hold on to that power, so if you want to seize that power, then you have to defeat them. In the same way the Nazis fought against colonial empires but it wasn’t out of opposition to colonialism, it was because they were in their way.
If the founding fathers had been acting out of a principled commitment to liberty and antifascism, then they would’ve freed the slaves. They did not.
In fact, they were very concerned about the idea of common people getting too much power and considered democracy to be “mob rule.” That’s why they set up things like the electoral college. After all, if the common people could do whatever they want, they might vote to free the slaves, or redistribute property or things like that. They (being wealthy themselves) were concerned with advancing and protecting their own positions before anything else.
Opposing a king because you want to replace him or opposing a king because he wants you to stop expanding into native territory and starting wars that he’ll have to pay for, those things are not antifascism. That’s just a monarch getting in your way.
Also worth noting that they had no reservations about accepting assistance from the French king, who was more of an absolute ruler than the British king, who shared power with parliament.
If the colonial empires existed today, what would you call them?
Orwell wrote an essay on Kipling that applied the label of “pre-fascist” to him so feel free to use that instead. For the sake of conversation we can then agree that anti-pre-fascists are antifa or close enough. You could also insist on pre-antifa, that’s pretty catchy.
After all, lesser evil empires fighting fascists still earn the title of antifascist, do they not?
Even if they, say, starve, imprison, and use “forced labor” on millions of their own citizens as a form of political control.
Otherwise you’ll find that pretty much the only people that deserve the term of antifa are anarchists, which I’m also fine with, welcome to the right side of socialism.
After all, lesser evil empires fighting fascists still earn the title of antifascist, do they not?
No, they absolutely do not. Wtf.
Lesser-evilist brainrot is now getting applied to history? Am I supposed to look at the Punic Wars or the Mongol invasion of China and label one side as fascist and the other side as antifa? Is this the point that discourse has reached now?
Christ, lesser-evilist ideology needs to have a stake driven through it’s heart yesterday. You fail history class forever.
As long we’re all being consistent then and agree that only anarchists are antifa, because the Maoists and Stalinists sure don’t count as antifascist in your definition. We’ll also accept the kind of Marxists the Soviets and CCP ended up killing too.
Or just about anyone that’s actually shot a Nazi in the face, statistically mostly conscripts of lesser evil empires.
Bruh you just said that slaving colonial empires are antifascist. I don’t give a shit what you think about “Stalinists” or Maoists, go read a book and educate yourself and stop talking nonsense before expecting anyone to take your opinion on anything at all seriously.
The Soviets and Maoists are also slaving empires. That’s just a historical fact, mister “read a book.”
Like I said, I’m fine not calling them antifa.
Particularly the Maoists because let’s be real, they made the Kuomintang do all the work in WW2.
Why aren’t you?
The Soviets and Maoists are also slaving empires. That’s just a historical fact, mister “read a book.”
Is that so? What’s your source that slavery was legal in the USSR and PRC? Let me guess, “I made it up.”
Like I said, I’m fine not calling them antifa.
The fact that you even suggested it is insanity.
Particularly the Maoists because let’s be real, they made the Kuomintang do all the work in WW2.
Lmao, would this be the KMT whose leader had to be kidnapped by his own guards because he kept trying to collaborate with the Japanese instead of fighting them?
Every single word that comes out of your mouth is an embarrassment. You are ignorant to the point of anti-intellectualism. You get things wrong left and right because you don’t even care about the facts, you just care about attacking me, over something completely irrelevant to what the discussion was about. I guess you’re probably just trying to farm meaningless internet points from people in your camp but if you think you’re actually presenting any sort of challenge to my beliefs, like I said, all you’re doing is embarrassing yourself, if anything, discrediting your own side with your ignorance.
Yeah… no. White America is pretty much the spiritual godmother of fascism.
Nazis literally looked to some of America’s founding fathers and the Confederacy for inspiration.
The confederacy was also defeated by Americans
Yes, but the the cowardly founding fathers were nowhere to be seen.
(I said nothing about “Americans”)
With Nietzsche as the godfather
I’m not familiar with that; what’s the relationship between Nietzsche and fascism?
Nietzsches sister was a fascist and claimed her brother was too (edit: after his death). A cursory glance from the Nazis showed them the concept of the Übermensch so they ran with it, but there’s not actually much there to support fascism. Nietzsche was a dick and there are all sorts of horrible things he wrote about non white men, but he wasn’t really a Nazi.
There’s a ton in Nietzsche to support fascism, starting with his virulent hatred of democracy, socialism, and liberalism.
He is simply the most important philosopher for the creation of fascism, including Giovanni Gentile, who gave Mussolini all his ideas.
That’s not to say he was a fascist himself, for example he absolutely hated nationalism and that’s kind of a requirement, or there isn’t any value in his works, I think there’s actually a decent amount in there for any kind of attempt at self actualization and rejecting victim mentality, but he’s definitely what you might call a proto-fascist thinker.
Keep in mind that there’s more kinds of fascist than Nazis. There’s even more kinds of Nazi than anti-semitic Nazis.
If I’ve got my Nietzsche right, then wouldn’t the idea of Ubermensch as something you can become rather than something you are not really line up with fascism anyway? Seems like they just took a word that sounded cool if anything.
Yeah, but the thing about fascists is, they’re dumb, so they didn’t think about it any further.
af - short for antifa. ‘rats, foiled again’
His head looks bloated
…according to him, they were…
