Incredible.
Jack Posobiec references the earliest version of antifa -- the anti-fascists in the Weimar Republic who were opposed to the Nazi Party -- as the bad guys.
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.
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.
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.
…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.
? 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.
I understood that which is why I asked if you understood the importance of voting.
They were concerned not about “mob rule” but about a dictator rising up from democracy and taking hold - because Socrates in Plato’s Republic says that and advocates for a Republic to prevent this (and our government is based off these ideas). Obviously I disagree and often point out that the worst criticism of democracy is that it may become something else like fascism. That’s just funny - people hating democracy because it might end.
They literally believed the laws were living documents that should often be rewritten by the people.
People DID vote and advocate for freeing the slaves, to give people the right to vote, to give women the right to vote, to give disabled people rights, to give queer people rights - that we gained these actually proves via your own argument that this wasn’t a completely fascist set up. That it matters who can vote or not is huge, because jit means voting matters.
They had a list of why they opposed the king - things like no taxation without representation (aka fascism). Obviously the best (and arguably ONLY) representation is self representation.
Again, no one said they were perfect or even correct or even fully not fascist. But the progress they made and the actions they took indeed contributed to human rights and empowering the people, which resulted in what we would call today as antifascist actions.
And again, many indeed did advocate for freeing the slaves. And many more were selfish pricks who didn’t, and so as the future people, it’s our job to take the good things they did, learn from it, and address the bad stuff.
I think part of our disagreement is that we seem to be operating on different definitions of “antifascist.”
And again, many indeed did advocate for freeing the slaves
And many of those who advocated for freeing the slaves did so “in principle” while in practice owning slaves themselves and setting up a system that perpetuated slavery.
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.”
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.
Lol, might as well ask you what your sources are for the Soviets being Marxists because there’s even less evidence of that than them being slavers, considering that no actual Marxist would enslave someone or set up a Jewish gulag state.
Now the academic well on forced labor in China is pretty poisoned these days since they still, you know, exist concurrently with modern American fascist propaganda orgs, but here’s some of what you know damn well is the truth anyways:
Replying to you cause I’m not feeling tankies in my notifications today, but holy shit.
Like I said, I’m fine not calling them antifa.
The fact that you even suggested it is insanity.
Not recognizing the clear bait for “China isn’t antifascist” and biting hard on it. It wasn’t even subtle with the forced labor comment but they teed themself up anyway, and still didn’t get it afterwards.
I’m endlessly amused and baffled by tankies’ inability to actually understand what they’re reading.
So, ignoring all the other stuff you got wrong and ignored and hyper focusing on a technicality, got it.
There is a significant difference from the systemic form of chattel slavery used in the US pre-civil war and the use of forced labor in prisons. Like at that point you might as well argue that PoC don’t have a particular claim to have been oppressed because white people go to prison sometimes which means that they’ve technically been enslaved too.
The Civil War still liberated a ton of people, even if the system that followed was far from perfect. Likewise, when the Russian and Chinese revolutions ended serfdom, it was a major step in the right direction - even though Western “leftists” will never forgive them for it.
…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.
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?
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.
…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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolomé_de_las_Casas
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.
I understood that which is why I asked if you understood the importance of voting.
They were concerned not about “mob rule” but about a dictator rising up from democracy and taking hold - because Socrates in Plato’s Republic says that and advocates for a Republic to prevent this (and our government is based off these ideas). Obviously I disagree and often point out that the worst criticism of democracy is that it may become something else like fascism. That’s just funny - people hating democracy because it might end.
They literally believed the laws were living documents that should often be rewritten by the people.
People DID vote and advocate for freeing the slaves, to give people the right to vote, to give women the right to vote, to give disabled people rights, to give queer people rights - that we gained these actually proves via your own argument that this wasn’t a completely fascist set up. That it matters who can vote or not is huge, because jit means voting matters.
They had a list of why they opposed the king - things like no taxation without representation (aka fascism). Obviously the best (and arguably ONLY) representation is self representation.
Again, no one said they were perfect or even correct or even fully not fascist. But the progress they made and the actions they took indeed contributed to human rights and empowering the people, which resulted in what we would call today as antifascist actions.
And again, many indeed did advocate for freeing the slaves. And many more were selfish pricks who didn’t, and so as the future people, it’s our job to take the good things they did, learn from it, and address the bad stuff.
I think part of our disagreement is that we seem to be operating on different definitions of “antifascist.”
And many of those who advocated for freeing the slaves did so “in principle” while in practice owning slaves themselves and setting up a system that perpetuated slavery.
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.
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?
Is that so? What’s your source that slavery was legal in the USSR and PRC? Let me guess, “I made it up.”
The fact that you even suggested it is insanity.
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.
Lol, might as well ask you what your sources are for the Soviets being Marxists because there’s even less evidence of that than them being slavers, considering that no actual Marxist would enslave someone or set up a Jewish gulag state.
Here you go anyways:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43658105?seq=1
Now the academic well on forced labor in China is pretty poisoned these days since they still, you know, exist concurrently with modern American fascist propaganda orgs, but here’s some of what you know damn well is the truth anyways:
https://laogairesearch.org/laogai-system/
Unless you’d like to explain why prison labor is only slavery when Americans do it
Replying to you cause I’m not feeling tankies in my notifications today, but holy shit.
Not recognizing the clear bait for “China isn’t antifascist” and biting hard on it. It wasn’t even subtle with the forced labor comment but they teed themself up anyway, and still didn’t get it afterwards.
I’m endlessly amused and baffled by tankies’ inability to actually understand what they’re reading.
So, ignoring all the other stuff you got wrong and ignored and hyper focusing on a technicality, got it.
There is a significant difference from the systemic form of chattel slavery used in the US pre-civil war and the use of forced labor in prisons. Like at that point you might as well argue that PoC don’t have a particular claim to have been oppressed because white people go to prison sometimes which means that they’ve technically been enslaved too.
The Civil War still liberated a ton of people, even if the system that followed was far from perfect. Likewise, when the Russian and Chinese revolutions ended serfdom, it was a major step in the right direction - even though Western “leftists” will never forgive them for it.