Thanks, I'm referring to events such as the Berkeley Riots [1] where the violence was at least partly incited by Antifa.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Berkeley_protests

If Antifa in the US is the similar to the ones in Sweden they will be initiating violence at protests like this. They are usually very prepared and have a lot of experience how to do it. Using violence to fight fascism is what they do even though they usually use non lethal methods.

In Sweden they consist of small autonomous groups that harass nazi sympathizer by vandalizing their homes, putting their address on the internet and calling relatives, neighbors and their work etc. Sometimes they have also physically assaulted nazis. In protests they usually throw stones, pepper spray, smoke bombs, urine etc and sometimes try and brawl with their opponents using clubs etc.

But I don't know at all what happened at this rally in the US but I would be incredibly surprised if you had one of the biggest white supremacy rally is in a long time in the US and Antifa did NOT try and physically stop it.

Antifa in the US use potentially deadly violence against people they target. There is a growing body of lawsuits and criminal convictions that will most likely have them declared as domestic terrorists at some point.

http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/05/24/berkeley-college-prof...

Protesting against fascism is all good but violence has to be denounced on all sides with no exceptions.

From what I gather Antifa in the US is extremely diverse in tactics, priorities (beyond the very broad “combat fascism/racism”), and, well, pretty much everything else. Which isn't surprising since it's small autonomous groups in at least two separate looser national organizations (“loose affiliation groups” may be more accurate than “organizations”).

Obviously, the more extreme elements get the most press coverage.

I don't understand fighting fascism with fascism.

Exactly. I believe the best way to fight fascism is to have open dialogue and expose repugnant ideas to the court of public opinion. This requires free speech. The initiation of force outside of self defence is amoral.

You could believe this, but that doesn't make it the proper way.

To be honest, we don't know how to stop these ideas. The nazi party came into power with less than 40% approval and gained that power that nearly destroyed the world.

It's scary to say but there are theories floating around from hundreds of years ago that were made by different philosophers about the nature of these.

For example, the paradox of tolerance is one of these theories.

I'm not saying we should be violent, I'm just saying we have absolutely no idea how to deal with this.

"The nazi party came into power with less than 40% approval and gained that power that nearly destroyed the world."

The Nazis first attacked and destroyed the free press and other free-speech institutions. Robust legal protections for free speech, and a culture of vigorously defending it, will prevent tyrants from gaining and maintaining power.

There is no 'paradox of tolerance'. The intolerant are intolerant, no matter which side they are on. Peaceful racists should have their say. We are all free to disagree and shun them. This isn't ivory tower. This is part and parcel of a free and open society.

I fear though that "Peaceful Racists" will spread to all conservatives. That > 60 million people could legitimately vote for a racist, xenophobic and sexist bigot seem to point out that these people are OK with racism, even if they're not active participants. Which is extremely disturbing.

From what I've read, anti-semitism, while it existed, wasn't mainstream in Germany as well. But the Nazis were "Peaceful Racists" at first (they changed pretty quickly) and seized power. I genuinely fear the same might happen in the US ...

If you fear that racism will spread to all conservatives than you really need to engage with them in respectful dialogue to test your hypothesis.

For example, you might be surprised to learn that the Democratic party was the party of slavery in the South and that the Nazi party used the Jim Crow laws as inspiration for their racist segregation and treatment of Jews. As shocking as this statement sounds, the Nazi party shares its ideological roots with the Democratic party. If you don't believe me please fact check it.

Lastly, I'd recommend reading Thomas Sowell and Dinesh D’Souza for a better understanding of what is conservatism.

The association of Nazis with conservatives, who defend JUDEO-Christian values, is dishonest to say the least.

What JUDEO-Christian values are you talking about? Those espoused by Donald Trump? Good Sir, conservatives voted for Trump DESPITE him being a manifestation of everything OPPOSITE to the values you speak of (liar, doesn't pay his debt, treats everyone else poorly, assaults women etc.). And if not for those values, what do conservatives stand for, really? Just a party of opposition/trolling liberals?

So who is being dishonest?

Let's drop the sham that not all conservatives will go down the terrible path of Nazism/White Supremacy in this current political climate. If not a certainty, from how Trump has been able to get away with one amazingly blatant political scandal after another, it shows just how its terrifyingly possible for that to happen. There is a path from A to B, and to ignore it is dangerous, disingenuous and dishonest

I never mentioned Trump, so your little rant makes no sense.

I'm talking about western values: private property, freedom of speech, the right to live.

These are historically conservative causes. These are judeo-christian values. How can a conservative be a Jew-hating Nazi while at the same time defending their values? It's a contradiction, it makes no sense.

In fact it's the left that is pretty much anti-Israel and pro-Palestine (like Hitler btw).

This is exactly what I mean by the paradox of tolerance. If we're tolerant towards intolerance, we're going to be outed.

If you refuse to recognize my existence as an equal human being deserving civil rights, you give up your right to be treated in a civil manner by me. Violence has absolutely no place in arguments between people, but if one party's only intention is to wipe out the other simply for being different, it means the second party is driven to use all options, including violence.

One may give up right to be treated in a civil manner by you. That part's fine. You don't need to be civil towards people who are repugnant.

But it still does not give you justification for violence or threats. No, you are not "driven" to violence. If you are violent, violence is your decision for which you are responsible.

(We are not talking about self defense situation, we're talking about going to someone else's non-violent demonstration to stop it by force).

And in defense of others?

It is not necessarily fascism just because they use violence. They view it as Nazis work towards a a violent society where certain minorities will be oppressed or even killed. So using violence to stop that is warranted just like it is for example warranted for the state to use violence to capture and hold a person that is preparing a terrorist attack.

I disagree of course as even though I really dislike Nazis political violence is something that is really dangerous for our democracy. For example in in town in Sweden one Antifa group jumped and beat up a libertarian politician just because he was seen as promoting politics that was hostile towards workers. Generally that is not something Antifa does but when you start using political violence is easy to use those methods more and more. Or inspire other groups that they should do it as well.

Americans are legally armed and have the right to defend themselves under the constitution. This ideology that Antifa is going to use physical violence to stop people in America from exercising there constitutional rights to free speech is one of the most dangerous ideas I have seen in some time.

These people in Antifa are going to get themselves killed and the people who use deadly force to protect themselves will walk away with out any charges. Its a miracle that there has not been any deaths up to this point.

I can't think of a better advertisement for Nazis than "we will protect you from Antifa"

Antifa does realize they are creating thier own adversaries, right?

red shirts vs brown shirts =( and the rest of us get shafted

I don't think you understand what fascism is.

There is nothing fascist in beating up Nazis.

Please do not condone the use of violence against (insert bad people) on HN. That is totally beyond any legitimate conversation and is illegal and morally repugnant.

I just said that there is nothing inherently fascist in beating up Nazis. That is not what you claim I said (that I condone violence).

I think your statement is very short and in the flow of the thread reads poorly if your intention was to say that committing violence can be done by people other then fascists.

It reads as an implicit moralization. But your correct that it is not an explicit statement. So if that was not your intention then I rescind my accusation.

Noting that something does not meet the definition of “fascism” isn't condoning it.

Correct. The ACLU is saying they would not defend Antifa if they were arrested for speech inciting violence.

The ACLU of California is carefully avoiding saying this, and it would be incredibly controversial if they did. After the Berkeley violence where masked antifa grabbed peaceful students they thought might be going to Milo's talk, pepper-sprayed them and beat them with weapons, the student newspaper ran a number of pieces supporting this and calling for future violence. I've seen numerous people on social media blaming the violence in Charlottesville on not taking the Berkeley approach, calling for this to happen at future events, and comparing antifa violence to Allied soldiers fighting the Nazis - including from respectable people in tech I follow who aren't usually political. More mainstream news organisations like CNN shy away from direct calls for violence in their flattering profiles, but they still run them.

The idea that antifa violence is wrong seems to be a fringe one in non-right-wing political circles. When the father of the woman murdered in Charlottesville called for peace and forgiveness from all, it was fascinating watching people online try and word their disapproval in ways that didn't seem too disrespectful.

> If the KKK didn't exist, Antifa wouldn't exist. If Antifa didn't exist, the KKK still would.

Not true. Antifa aren't just anti-racist protestors, they're a loose collection of Communist and Anarcho-communist groups. If fascism never existed those groups just rally under a different name.

The spectrum of Antifa is very wide, not just Communists. The only thing common about the various groups that make up Antifa is that we hate Nazis and other racist/fascist ideology and their supporters. Some of us promote and use violence to protect society from them, some of us do not.

> If the KKK didn't exist, Antifa wouldn't exist

The Anti-Fascist movement is, as the name suggests, concerned with more than the KKK, but, more broadly, it's sole uniting purpose would be absent without fascist, neo-fascist, and related violent racist movements.

No,the "anti-fascist" movement has other uniting purposes. For instance, opposing capitalism or market economy.

There was nothing fascist, neo-fascist or racist about the G20 meeting in Hamburg. The black-clad antifas still attacked it with lots of force and violence.

They were quite happy to dress up in Nike and take photos with iPhones, though.

> No,the "anti-fascist" movement has other uniting purposes. For instance, opposing capitalism or market economy.

While Antifa membership is largely drawn from the an anarchocommunist community and some other radical anticapitalism groups, anticapitalism is not it's purpose. As some American Antifa members pointed out in response to criticism that Antifa did not organize against Obama in the US:

“To criticize antifa for not mobilizing against Obama is to misunderstand the movement: anti-fascism is not a comprehensive critique of hierarchical society in and of itself. Anti-fascist work is done as a piece of, and not a replacement for, a larger radical vision. […] Mobilizing large radical movements against neoliberal (or populist) capitalism is not the focus of anti-fascism; this is the work of the anarchist and anti-capitalist movements as a whole.”

https://anarchistnews.org/content/what-do-us-antifascists-ac...

> If the KKK didn't exist, Antifa wouldn't exist.

Not true. In my country, KKK does not exist. Antifa still exists and occasionally tries to find excuses for violence.

Mostly it's just tagging graffiti though, and LARPing a revolution.

>If the KKK didn't exist, Antifa wouldn't exist.

Why would you say that? Antifa (and the organizations it descends from) have existed and acted, sometimes violently, in many situations unrelated to the KKK or white supremacists.

For example, as we saw in Berkeley not long ago, they'll show up to violently protest Milo Yiannopolous by chasing down people in the street and using sticks to beat them unconscious.

(For the video, watch the first 2 minutes of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAqBxMZ-Zs0)

Of course they call Milo a Nazi. But calling Milo, the gay Greek half-Jew with a black boyfriend, a white supremacist just indicates that they're willing to stretch the definition to demonize anyone they don't like. If the KKK didn't exist, they'd stretch the definition as needed to recreate the KKK in their own minds.

"Milo is gay and dates a Black man" is a weird thing to say, to defend him from charges of being a Nazi sympathizer.

Or child sexual assault apologist.

I mean, the man has a body of work to be judged by. And he has been.

There were the tweets of an NYT reporter, Solberg or Stolberg I think. NYT is not very far to the right.

You could also look up the case of Berkeley antifa Eric Clanton, although he was not in Charlottesville- that would have violated the terms of his parole for the upcoming trial of his: 4 counts of assault with a deadly weapon at a previous rally in CA.

None? http://www.unz.com/article/narrative-collapse-is-charlottesv...

I looked at some of the other articles on that site and would encourage others to do the same, before deciding whether to trust its contents. It appears to be a right wing propaganda rag with a very loose definition of "truth".