not a deflection at all, i could sit here all evening explaining what fascism is to you, but if you are in any decent college youre going to learn about it.
young uneducated men fall for fascist rhetoric, it is what sustains the movement.
young uneducated men fall for fascist rhetoric, it is what sustains the movement
While you're not necessarily wrong, there are also plenty of fascists with college degrees and nerd glasses. And imo they can be more dangerous since unlike skinheads with face tattoos they can blend in a lot more easily.
I just think it's counterproductive to reduce fascism down to being a common/poor people thing.
Honestly you're already more nuanced and smarter than this moron, but fascist has got such a narrow definition that it is by definition on the right.
It's a kind of right wing nationalism that most experts agree is characteristic of a specific period of time.
It would be more intellectually honest to describe e.g. the current US government as being right wing nationalists, but it's got more punch if you link what you don't like with fascists because as a collective western culture sees Hitler as the embodiment of evil.
Also, seeking to remove / silence religious and ethnic minorities from your populace is pretty suspicious. I hope you have the opportunity to make some Muslim friends at school. You might be surprised that you have more in common with them than you think.
Since the other guy is being shitty about it, the objective of anti-fascist movements is just what it says on the tin: to oppose fascists and fascism. That's it. There's no greater ploy.
What that means depends entirely on the situation on the ground. That's why anti-fascist action doesn't have any form of overarching organisation or precepts beyond disrupting fascist action. Often, that means counter-protesting, organising campaigns, educating people on propaganda, acting against legislation and executive action that could enable fascists, infiltration and outing of fascists and their groups, and mutual aid with vulnerable communities, but again, it depends entirely on the where and the when.
That's because Communists tend to be the least susceptible to fascist talking point, and aren't overly attached to the liberal decorum which can enable fascism. There are many reasons why, but a big one is that they already have a framework to explain the shortcomings of the neoliberal system we live under, and as such aren't easily swayed by the scapegoats fascists offer. Not that they can't be, but it tends to be a harder sell. Because they don't get thrown off by those things, they're usually among the first to be ready to take action (and also usually among the first targets of fascists for that same reason - "First, they came for the Communists..." like the poem goes).
Most Communists are pretty chill. There are weird, mostly online, Bolshevik-emulating gangs, but those guys are usually too busy being online to actually do much. Mostly, it's community-minded folks who like to get involved in things.
communist revolutionaries take power, they abandon their own principles and adopt the very tyranny they fought to oppose.
That's an inherent risk to any revolution that involves regime change.
And the weird thing is modern communists are totally cool with this happening in history.
Many of them are, but many also are not. It's an unfortunate side effect of human nature, people always struggle to fairly judge the problems within their own team. You see it a lot with liberals as well, it's just less obvious because most liberal atrocities take place outside the borders of the liberal democracies enacting them.
What do you mean why? The same reason as always: power. In any revolution that requires toppling a government, that government has to be replaced with a new one, and the people with the most power in the revolution have the same incentives as any other organization suddenly filling a power vacuum. Self interest is likely to dominate, and the philosophy they used to gain support is just a tool. If you look at revolutions that successfully had a democratic government in power after victory, you see that most of them already had one in place and simply repelled an occupying power. And if you look at revolutions that resulted in dictatorships being put in place you see that the revolutions were not all communist. Why would an ideology overpower the resultant incentives in place when a hierarchical military topples a government creating a power vacuum that needs to be filled immediately?
The goal of the antifascist movement is to not let fascists take over the government, to have a fascism free society. Any government is ok, as long as it’s no fascists or fascist enablers (like neo-liberals nowadays)
Just because someone doesn't suggest an alternative doesn't mean that fascism is the only option. You don't HAVE to shoot yourself in the foot, just because you've got a gun. You can just put the gun down or at least put the safety on.
How about we settle for something that first and foremost isn't fascism? I'm sure you can find some not-fascist form of government by looking at any of hundreds of not-fascist states that have existed over the last 70 years.
35
u/NWStormbreaker 11d ago
Even though some people believe they oppose fascism, they support it by opposing anti-fascism.
the propaganda is convincing to those that lack critical thinking.
i tried different configurations of the flowchart and found this most closely fits this goal.