“There can be no ethical services provided by the government because they are facilitated through the power of the gun,” writes PARC, presumably while flipping the bird like in the top photo. “Don’t get us wrong, we believe that many of these services are crucial for society, like healthcare, education, and maintained roadways, but we believe that the way to achieve access for all is by deconstructing the state and capitalism, as well as other coercive hierarchies that exist in our society. It is this driving philosophy that motivates our actions, not only to fix the potholes, but to take power back from the state, into the hands of the people.”
Sure, but in most cases anarchism is 'bash the fash' with 'fascist' being defined as 'anyone we don't like' including unarmed people. Fists or makeshift weapons are typically used as they can't be traced.
It's odd: anarchists openly justify violence in defense from 'fascism', whereas fascism is correctly defined as obtaining and maintaining power through violence, without seeing the irony.
Are you sure it's "most cases", or just the ones you hear about in the news? How many do you know personally? Beware of the availability bias.
As an anecdote, I live near a left-wing anarchist group called the Center of Libertarian Culture, and I can assure you they're all pacific people.
It's odd: anarchists openly justify violence in defense from 'fascism', whereas fascism is correctly defined as obtaining and maintaining power through violence, without seeing the irony.
There's no irony; anarchists don't want to obtain and maintain power, just to prevent others from doing so.
I know a couple, from tech, who are anarchists: I'm friends with one of them despite them being very damaged people. Both are openly violent towards anyone right of Bernie Sanders and one other told me, with a serious face, they wanted to stab everyone in the pool at a tech conference I attended.
By beating the shit out of people you're obtaining power for yourself. Modern anarchism is fascism, masking itself as the opposite.
Yes, I know. Hence explicitly mentioning 'self described anarchists' in the thread. The people in the article are also self described anarchists. You're arguing very successfully against a straw man.
Because every anarchist I've known personally, met online, or read about shares their same ideals of moral superiority through violence.
Saying 'violent thugs don't represent the original priciples of anarchism' is missing the point, in the same way that people who say 'real communism hasn't been tried' and ignore the 100M dead people.
Some of those academics smash people's skulls with bike locks. People who are mild mannered often enjoy violence when they think they can't be identified.
That is an interesting assertion, but I don't think it is a good way of convincing people to see things your way. The more I hear the message that anarchists and anti-fascists are the real fascists, the less receptive I am to the viewpoint. It's similar to the repetitive promotion of the idea that civil rights activists are the real racists. There is the message you are sending with the argument itself, and then there is the meta-message you are sending by making the argument. The former can be fairly logical, and yet be undermined by the latter.
1. People who use violence to obtain power are fascists. All fascists suck, whether left or right. The only person saying right wing fascists aren't real fascists is you, while making a very poor straw man argument.
2. Civil rights activists aren't primarily known for violence. Anarchists are.
3. Saying their actions have nothing to do with the principles of fascism is like staring at a wall of human skulls in Cambodia and saying this has nothing to do with the principles of socialism: you're missing the point.
> People who use violence to obtain power are fascists.
So, the American Revolutionaries were fascists?
Fascists, even in the lose sense theat doesn't refer tons particular historical Italian political group, are a much narrower label.
> All fascists suck, whether left or right.
There are left wing tyrants (tyrants, while broader than fascists, are still narrower than you have attempted to paint fascists), but they aren't fascists.
But anarchists aren't that, either (some of the subelements of the antifa movement, particularly the Maoist ones, might be inclined in theat direction, but Maoists and anarchists, even anarchocommunists, aren't the same thing.)
> Civil rights activists aren't primarily known for violence. Anarchists are.
During the period of major activity, most anti-estsblishment groups are tarred with the violence of their most extreme subcomponents (which may actually be provocateurs) or even the most extreme groups with similar objections, even if they are outside the main group. This was absolutely the case with the civil rights movement.
> Saying their actions have nothing to do with the principles of fascism
They have nothing to do with the defining characteristics of fascism, either. The only association is that fascism is broadly accepted as a negative label and you wish to brand anarchists negatively.
People are defined by their actions not by their own propaganda.
Civil rights activists fight against power systems, revolutionaries fought for representation: anarchists are violent thugs who pretend to be activists to justify violence towards anyone who doesn't share their ideology.
Understanding the obvious discrepancy between the words of anarchists and their actions is important part of being politically mature.
Anarchists already have a negative label: edgy people who pretend to be brave by wearing a mask and beating people / phone boxes because there's something wrong in their lives. If you don't believe that fine, trying to convince you of anything would be like trying to convince any other (moon landing / flat earth / building 7) conspiracy theorist. Enjoy your early twenties.
I think that when you draw a distinction between civil rights activists and anarchists, you are using hindsight. These days everybody claims MLK was a peaceful giant who was on their side all along. Republicans say he was a Republican, libertarians say he was a libertarian, anarchists say he was an anarchist, etc. But before he had become a safe historical figure, he was held responsible for violence and very seriously accused of being a communist/anarchist by those in the government and on the right who thought those categories were the worst thing possible to be. So one must be skeptical of such name calling today.
Left of center people attack libertarians these days using parallel rhetoric, identifying them as equivalent to the worst right wing types and responsible for everything about capitalism that can be criticized (e.g. the body count from everything bad). Are you on the same page, or do you reject that as invalid nonsense? Do you agree libertarians are fascists too?
Have you ever noticed how ubiquitous the fasces is in Washington, DC, on statues (e.g. Lincoln) and things? That doesn't make our government fascist to be sure, but it's about as good an argument as the one you are making about other people.
I don't think it's a misrepresentation at all, especially if you consider the anti-Fa movement. anti-Fa is ironically using very fascist tactics in their protest of fascism.
That's what I was thinking when I said "beware of the news bias". Regardless of what one thinks of specific actions of the Antifa movement, it's not necessarily true that those represent even Antifa members as a whole, and it's completely specious to assume they represent anarchists as a whole. Antifa is not even an anarchist-only movement.
“There can be no ethical services provided by the government because they are facilitated through the power of the gun,” writes PARC, presumably while flipping the bird like in the top photo. “Don’t get us wrong, we believe that many of these services are crucial for society, like healthcare, education, and maintained roadways, but we believe that the way to achieve access for all is by deconstructing the state and capitalism, as well as other coercive hierarchies that exist in our society. It is this driving philosophy that motivates our actions, not only to fix the potholes, but to take power back from the state, into the hands of the people.”