Brown claimed that slavery is war (and violence) against own people and therefore it is ok to use violence to fight it. Does the expectation of non-violent opposition holds for anti nazi partisans too? What would be difference? What about other war heroes?
Fascism was heralded by some as “the next step” in political evolution, which rightly horrified a significant number of people who could see the inevitable results. It was not judged by the same parameters of an expansionist foreign power, but by the potential for “evil” in one’s own country.
And what about the billions of people that sees the US as a fascistic imperialistic hydra? Would it be cool to pick of Obama as well?
What if these guys are falsely accused for being fascists by teenagers who never read a history book in their life.
That being said posts like this doesn't belong on HN and cries for murder most definitely don't. A real shame might as well head over to reddit or 4chan for this parroting of slogans.
It's often useful to problematise simple statements, to draw out different implications and to shed light on what might be un or under considered aspects.
I don't think your comment does this though. Mussolini was a fascist. Not someone with some fascist sympathies, or someone who someone else accused of being fascistic.
Maybe my response was a bit glib. Violence is certainly not something to be undertaken lightly but I think political violence against fascists is justified, and can be considered self-defence.
I don't see either why one should oppose a plaque for John Brown.
Homegrown assasinations of fascist leaders whose basis for power is a projection of strength and a cult of personality, with strong existing domestic oppositions?
That's very different in outcome.
By that measure 9-11 was home grown!
[0] https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/life/features/profile-viole...
Says 1924, and that she was already toying with the idea of martyrdom.
> In her room at the convent Gibson had amassed a collection of newspaper cuttings critical of Mussolini, and others outlining his movements. She also had a box of bullets. The origin of the revolver, her second, was never determined. The lead detective investigating the case believed Gibson was feigning madness and had not acted alone but possibly in collaboration with catholic modernist dissidents from the poor Trastevere neighbourhood. [...]
> In June 1926, succumbing to immense pressure, Gibson made a confession. Her story was that she had committed the crime to impress an Italian duke named Giovanni Colonna, who she had fallen in love with years before in Switzerland. Vehemently opposed to fascism, she claimed Colonna had communicated his desire for Mussolini's death through a series of clues before gifting her with gun and bullets, that led her to the assassination site that fateful day. The duke was under surveillance for anti-fascist activities, and his movements at the time of the shooting could not be accounted for, lending plausibility to Gibson's account.
Clearly this was not the work of a foreign faction, there was a clear element of Italian involvement.
Not home grown.
Anyway, there is no point arguing about this.
Will you at least concede the point that she’d been in Italy for less than 2 years?
One might also observe that the violent attack in a foreign country might almost be ‘Imperialist’.
And if the attack was politically motivated (I personally think she was a few sandwiches short of a picnic), then she’s down for some political violence.
In that case she’s a bit more facist than anti-facist.
At least North Korea hasn't invaded anyone for the last 60 years. As they said in the Nuremberg trials, aggression is the ultimate war crimes, a capital one.
What is the point of including the USA and Israel if you are going to append the West?
Or was it too hard to list the individual perpetrators and just went for what felt good?
[PS. Not a westerner]
Perhaps violence is the right way to address all people who have politics we don’t agree with?
Thomas Mair agrees with you.
Then, one must consider efficacy - if it's going to be useless then why bother?
Finally, one must consider the presence of altermatives. If you can at all avoid it, then political violence is not really justifiable.
In this case, the three elements converged, and it's in those cases that political violence can be warranted if done for good. This isn't even controversial, people defend the violence of the US Founding Fathers which engaged in much more violence for much, much, much less.
Presumably on that basis you see the killing of Jo Cox as justified?
Historians typically mark the official beginning of Mussolini’s dictatorship in 1924, when, following the assassination of socialist MP Giacomo Matteotti by fascists and the subsequent clamour, he went to Parliament and basically told MPs to “shut up or else”. And let’s not forget that he had been appointed Prime Minister with a de-facto coup in 1922.
As for “genocidal”, I’m not sure what parameters could be used. The infamous invasion of Ethiopia with chemical weapons had not happened yet, and obviously the Racial Laws were a long way away, but he had already begun the “pacification” of Libya (war started in 1923). Also, political violence against the opposition was already large-scale, as shown with Matteotti.
By 1926 it was pretty clear he wasn’t a simple political leader for sure, and he had already spoken at length against representative democracy. Whether that deserved an assassination attempt, is debatable; but there is little question that by 1926 he could be defined as a violent dictator.
Is it a good policy for a nation to glorify and honor an attempt at assassinating the leader of a nation? Compare to John Brown the abolitionist, who raided a federal armory in an attempt to start a slave revolt (and was executed for treason). Might it be better to say "don't do these things no matter how important you think your cause is"?