Talk:Militant anti-fascism

Confusing sentence[edit]

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]

Why does Antifa point to this page[edit]

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]

Merge with Antifa[edit]

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-Fascist Action in the UK, and is anachronistic in relation to earlier groups like, say, the 43 Group. It seems to me that they are different enough, therefore, to warrant their own pages, in the way that Black Bloc gets a page seperate from 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]

Stuff taken out[edit]

I kind of also think that some of this stuff is important too, particularly contrast with liberal anti-fascism, but don't want to just put it back in without discussion:

Militant anti-fascism' is a form of anti-fascism that advocates the use of violence against fascism, opposes depending on the state to combat fascism, and often has an orientation to working class politics. Militant anti-fascism can be contrasted with 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 hate speech or to prosecute fascists under existing laws, militant anti-fascism either actively opposes or does not put energy into such calls, preferring instead direct action by the 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 class struggle view of politics and view fascism as first and foremost anti-working class. Because of this, militant anti-fascists tend to promote radical 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

Accuracy of opening sentence[edit]

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]

boring[edit]

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 unsigned comment was added by 194.97.160.213 (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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"...

Anti-Fascist League India[edit]

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 fascism is does not conform to Wkipedia's definitions of fascism (which are backed up by several reliable sources). If what BobFromBrockley says about the Indian website is true (I haven't looked at the site), then that group does not meet the established definition of militant anti-fascism. Spylab 16:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is difference between Marxist definitions of fascism and liberal definitions of fascism. Marxists consider fascism as primarily anti-communist and anti-socialist ideology. Liberals say that fascism is primarily racial or religious ideology. Communist Party of India (Maoist) and other revolutionary democratic organisations consider Andhra Pradesh and Chattisgarh politicians as fascist because of their hardcore anti-communist ideologies. There are also cases of government sponsored hired gangs killing leaders of non-Maoist organisations that advocate basic democratic rights. Antifa League of India justifies armed struggle. So, they display images of Marxist leaders Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh and Kim Jong il on the front page of their website. Liberal anti-fascists do not justify armed struggle and they think that fascism can be ended in peaceful way. Marxist anti-fascists are true militant anti-fascists because they justify armed struggle against fascism.

Edited by sympathiser of Antifa League India.

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]

Image[edit]

This image:

File:Hamm02.jpg

Antifa's demonstration against anti-semitism and in support of Israel, in Hamm 2004.

was removed by an anonymous editor. Any reason not to put it back in? BobFromBrockley 11:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it must be put back. Mitsos 13:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image is not representative of the anti-fascist movement. It represents a very very small minority in Germany which is pro-Israel. The vast majority of anti-fascists are anti-Zionist and support the Palestinian cause. I'm removing this image. -unsigned by 71.199.125.21

Not completely sure I agree with 71.199.125.21. Any other opinions? BobFromBrockley 11:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The determining factor should be whether the people in the photo are confirmed to be militant anti-fascists, and whether the caption is factually accurate. On the image's page, there is no information about exactly when the photo was taken and who the people are. Whether the people in the photo represent the majority view of militant anti-fascists is not for Wikipedia to decide (unless there are reliable sources to support or dispute the claim). Perhaps the photo should remain out of the article until someone can adequately confirm the specific details about the photo. Spylab 13:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The people in the photo aren't specifically militant antifascists. They are 'anti-german communists.' They are not representative of militant anti fascism, and so a different picture would be more appropriate for this article. The wikipedia page on them is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Germans_(communist_current)

They differ from militant anti-fascists in that they do oppose fascist meetings and marches (see, for example, the account here - http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1859705,00.html ), but that they tend to do so without physical confrontation, and take an ideological platform. Though they are not liberal anti-fascists either.

They are a peculiar group who probably consider themselves anti-fascist, but who ideologically support America and Isreali foreign policy without reserve (hence the US flags and Isreali flags in the picture), and who will disrupt both left wing and right wing marches. Because of their ideological peculiarities, they don't fully fit this article's account of 'militant anti fascism' or of 'liberal anti fascism' but overlap and disagree with both simultaneously. Perhaps a *very* short reference to them as a peculiarity with a link to the other wiki article would be most appropriate. 82.44.150.233 19:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by that discription, it doesn't seem that they fit the definition of militant anti-fascist. Spylab 22:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The article kind of makes them look like militant anti-fascists to me, but as they are borderline, it is certainly best the page is not illustrated by this image. Page should perhaps refer to them though - have added to see also, but with some hesitation. BobFromBrockley 16:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dubious comment about liberal anti-racists[edit]

The article currently says, "liberal anti-racists call on the state to outlaw hate speech", contrasting with the militants who prefer direct violent confrontation with it. But whether liberal anti-racists advocate even this depends heavily on the country and type of liberalism. In the Anglo-Saxon tradition of liberalism, calling on the government to outlaw hate speech is decidedly illiberal, and a liberal anti-racist would instead advocate reacting to racist speech with louder and more convincing anti-racist speech (or in some circumstances ignoring it to avoid giving it unwanted attention)—not censoring it. --Delirium 10:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

maybe that's true, but "liberal anti-fascism" is a phrase commonly used in the anti-fascist movement in this way. In fact, the term "militant anti-fascism" (as opposed to just anti-fascism) is generally used in opposition to liberal anti-fascism. An earlier version of the article (see "Stuff taken out" section of this talkpage above) made this clearer. I'll edit mildly to make this clearer again. BobFromBrockley 17:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that makes some sense... perhaps then it should just be clarified then that the term has specific meaning in a specific milieu, and does not generally refer to all liberals who are anti-fascists. --Delirium 00:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified slightly. Does this work now? I agree that the liberal anti-fascism page needs more substantial work to reflect what you're saying. BobFromBrockley 10:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the record of such groups pressing for initial requests for censorship, often by spreading false information or sensationalizing dubious "facts" and, if this fails, resorting to death threats or bomb scares then or physical violence itself, it would become clear to me that a lot of the groups covered by this article believe very firmly in censorship, either by the state or through their own violent means. I've edited the opening article to reflect this fact. :bloodofox: 13:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti image[edit]

Come on, we can certainly find a better anti-fascist image than a graffiti saying "nazis no". Mitsos 19:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heuw. That's hardly graffiti, it's more like... trash... Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new picture needed asap.

17:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Great Patriotic War vs. Eastern Front campaign of the Second World War.[edit]

1. The majority of English-speakers are familiar with the conflict between Germany and Russia circa 1941-45 as the Eastern Front campaign or the German invasion of Russia and they are typically familiar with it as part of the Second World War. Referring to it as the "Great Patriotic War" is completely unnecessary.

2. The sentence as written "POWs captured by the Soviets during the Great Patriotic War) (Eastern Front campaign of the Second World War) in the 1940s..." is awkward and redundant. As "Eastern Front campaign of the Second World War" states the same exact thing as "Great Patriotic War" in terms that far more people will be familiar with, it is the better, more encyclopedic, and preferable, of the two choices. --71.14.67.175 (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modern joke/hobby groups vs. Serious pre-war Violence[edit]

We need to have two different articles;

Militant anti-fascism: detailing clashes between actual fascists and actual communists, pre-war. I'm not sure if such an article would be relevent under such a title though, as it could be WP:OR. I actually think such information could be merged with pre-existing articles such as the article on the Soviet-backed communist partisans in Italy during the 1920s to 1940s.
Antifa: this is in relation to the most common media descriptions today and the most common contemporary organisations, which is given hardly any coverage in the main body of the article just links in the "see also" section. The "alternative lifestyler", skinhead, hardcore punk jokers on both sides which we see today have nothing to do with the original pre-war clashes between serious communists and serious fascists. antifa-vs-white nationalist groups is essential a joke or hobby clashes, with little to do with real world politics described in the article body. - Guardian of Plato (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irony[edit]

Taken from the wikipedia page on fascism:

"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. – Robert O. Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism"

That is an exact definition of Antifa. The events at the Cologne, Germany SIOE rally prove this. (Antifa, in collusion with government and city officials, violenty stopped the SIOE rally) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.234.79 (talk) 05:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]