I seem to recall seeing a video or reading an article where they mention that the media turned antifa into a sort of separate word to warp its meaning. Instead of saying anti fascist, which has a clear meaning, they shortened it and changed the pronunciation ‘an teefa’ (something to do with which syllable you emphasise) so they could distort its meani g and demonise the word to make people think it was bad.
So now people dont realise antifa means anti fascist which is surely a good thing to be, and instead, they fear antifa as some kind of terrorist group, which is almost the opposite of what it is.
The funny thing is, as an outsider to this, living in the UK, our media doesn’t ever use the term, and when i heard it, my instinct was to look up its meaning. It’s interesting to me that i won’t know if i would have fallen for it if the media were using it in the same way over here to lead my understanding of its definition
I think Antifa actually started in the UK even before the Nazi’s. Eh actually not but they did fight against fascists in the UK as early as 1930.
The reason why we need antifa and why it’s hated by the mainstream is because the establishment is notoriously bad at stopping fascism. There is a long history of it. So besides liberal antifa that uses legal means like suing the KKK out of existence, the autonomous antifa is actually needed for the continued working of our democracy.
Afaik, the first Antifa were a coalition of left wing groups in Italy fighting fascists in the 1920s. They didn’t necessarily use the term but they were the first active anti-fascists so that counts in my book 🤷
As a side note, they were left to fight both the fascists and the royalists alone, since the Italian Liberals refused to get involved until it was clear who would win and then joined the fascists.
I think that is the lesson, liberals do not effectively fight against fascism because they are too desiring of orderly and calm and polite politics and too much powered by economic interests (bourgeois). So we actually rely on antifa as a social force. Neither the state nor the liberals will fight against it. At least that is my limited understanding of it, since this is never discussed about in mainstream media.
liberals do not effectively fight against fascism because they are too desiring of orderly and calm and polite politics and too much powered by economic interests
Absolutely 100% correct.
So we actually rely on antifa as a social force.
We need to, yes.
Neither the state nor the liberals will fight against it.
Right you are again!
At least that is my limited understanding of it, since this is never discussed about in mainstream media.
Seems to me you understand it perfectly but yeah, the mainstream media is for-profit and owned by billionaires who are often friends with or at least have common interests with the fascists, so they have very logical, if despicable, reasons to be hands-off about it.
Antifa (Antifaschistische Aktion) under that name started in 1932 as action by the KPD to organise widest possible front against the nazis, in the face of SPD as a party being very reluctant to act against nazis. Many SPD members did joined, but as we know, their own party in reichstag made that futile.
Of course antifascist resistance is about as old as fascism or even older considering protofascists activity even before Mussolini coined the term, but the name itself is from 1932 KPD.
They have a constant and desperate effort to invent words they can’t define that categorize their blind rage since they’re not allowed to say one that starts with N. “Woke” is the newest one.
Yeah that’s bullshit. There isn’t some secret cabal that’s in charge of US journalism anymore than there is in the UK. What really happens is that because the old news-media business models have been utterly destroyed by the Internet, there’s a giant and never-ending competition for audience and everyone knows that sensationalism sells.
You have a similar problem in the UK but it’s not as pronounced because the BBC is government funded and even though it’s far from perfect, it does set a kind of baseline. Your other big news organizations are just as bad as in the US though. Your tabloids are actually a lot worse than ours, which is saying something.
And you know how.his followers hang on his every word. I mean, he literally incited a riot/assault on capitol.
I see your point, but i dont see how the old news being taken over by internet news changes who is in control of the narrative. I also dont think i was referring to any kind of “secret cabal.”
I was only saying that i heard or read somewhere that antifa was demonised in the media, and thats why so many think they are terrorists. If you ask most americans what antifa means, they don’t know. They only know the abbreviation ‘antifa’ and that they are scared of it.
It kinda does since, despite GOP talking points to the contrary, Antifa is not a terrorist group or even a group at all. It’s a movement with the sole purpose of opposition to fascism.
At best, being anti-antifa is being pro-fascist and the difference between that and being a fascist is miniscule if existent.
I suspect the plastic snapped on those two portions left and right. Maybe?
That’s one suggestion when fixing a plastic thing. If there was a brittle fracture (think silly putty when you rip it apart fast), then you’ll get this “distorted plane” surface somewhere. It’ll be smooth to the touch, not glossy, and its edge/profile won’t make sense as part of the design.
Why am I micromanaging your perceptions? Sorry. I mean look for spots where the plastic snapped.
If you find the corresponding one, the other half of that snap, it’ll fit perfectly like a puzzle piece. You can glue that. I think. It’s been forever since I’ve tried this. Might be you need to rough up the surface first, to ensure glue remains in the gap. Otherwise that brittle snap is too perfect and the gap volume is zero, meaning all the glue gets squeezed out.
I think. Again, over a decade since I’ve repaired any plastic thing, that I can recall at the moment.
Also, you could probably drill out some holes (probably wanna find some ancient greek style geometry trick to line them up. I suspect you could use intersecting lines to find the corresponding point on both pieces; definitely don’t eyeball it because the slightest misalignment in joining will make a ridge a person’s fingers or thumb can detect).
Anyway drill out holes on both sides that line up, and put a little threaded metal cylinder (screw with head and tip cut off) in. Make that join really strong. Probably better than just sanding it to make glue space.
Anyway if it didn’t brittle fracture, or if it came apart just not brittlely? Word? But ductilely, like silly putty pulled apart slow, then you’ve got a whole different thing. Probably gotta heat the plastic and re-form it. Talk to someone who does cars about reshaping plastic then.
Or maybe the little plastic nipple snapped and you need to replace it with a new one. It looks softer so harder to glue? Maybe?
Hope you enjoyed my rambling. Good luck. Who’s the action figure? Is that He Man?
“Fascism is not a form of state power “standing above both classes – the proletariat and the bourgeoisie,” as Otto Bauer, for instance, has asserted. It is not “the revolt of the petty bourgeoisie which has captured the machinery of the state,” as the British Socialist Brailsford declares. No, fascism is not a power standing above class, nor government of the petty bourgeoisie or the lumpen-proletariat over finance capital. Fascism is the power of finance capital itself. It is the organization of terrorist vengeance against the working class and the revolutionary section of the peasantry and intelligentsia. In foreign policy, fascism is jingoism in its most brutal form, fomenting bestial hatred of other nations… The development of fascism, and the fascist dictatorship itself, assume different forms in different countries, according to historical, social and economic conditions and to the national peculiarities, and the international position of the given country.”
Soros, Bill Gates and the Bilderbergs, I guess? Probably also that Davos guy who Alex Jones et al TOTALLY aren’t fixated on for antisemitic reasons either, nuh-uh!
In my opinion it would be a movement if facism was the status quo. Given most people are discussing Western nations, which while adopting facism at an alarming pace; are not yet facist. Antifa is not a movement nor an organization. Since not being facist is the status quo and antifa means that you’re not going to support facism, in my opinion antifa is the current “establishment” and being facist is an effort to move the status quo. Aka a movement.
A movement can have members and leaders even without formal organizational hierarchy. It just won’t look the same as something like a corporation, nonprofit, or government. The person who noticed that the Proud Boys were coming to town and rallied people to a counter-protest? Definitely a leader. The people who show up on a cold rainy Saturday instead of staying indoors with a warm cup of tea? Members. Just because membership and leadership is more amorphous doesn’t mean it isn’t there in some form.
The person who noticed that the Proud Boys were coming to town and rallied people to a counter-protest? Definitely a leader
Nahh you got that wrong. What usually happens is that a lot of people who are into politics (which left-extreme people often are) hear about this at the same time (through some press release, some proud boys twitter account who’s rallyin their followers, etc.).
From that point the information spreads over friendsgroups, small discords, tweets, whatsapps, in person, slowly but steadily.
Any left-extreme person who hears this immediately thinks “I’m mad, I wanna show those guys that they’re not welcome”. Granted, some of us think about much more extreme things, but back to the point. The first reaction from that thought is often “is there a counter protest?”. People are then doing the same thing but the other way around, as now everyone is trying to find some tweet, event, whatsapp message screenshot, whatever, of someone saying where the meeting point for an event would be. If none are found, someones gonna create something, which is usuqlly someone who’s got a lot of connections with other left-extremists. Often there’s multiple people creating the same counterprotest, which gets super messy at times, but somehow everyone manages to meet up in some general spot.
Worst case you just have a bunch of friends groups going to the meeting spot of wherever the initial event is happening.
That’s “the antifa”. A massive network of friends and friends of friends of friends who are all pretty aligned in their political views (which is “fuck Nazis”) but who often don’t know more then 5 other antifacists.
Often there’s multiple people creating the same counterprotest, which gets super messy at times, but somehow everyone manages to meet up in some general spot.
This is kind of my point, in a way. It was maybe simplistic to use one person. There is leadership, but there are many leaders, and they don’t have a badge with “Antifa CEO”. Though someone really needs to make stickers with “Antifa CEO”. One of my former managers came from activist circles like antifa. She will always be my favorite manager because she is so great at making sure even shy people feel heard.
People are just nitpicking the meaning of the word Organization. Antifa is an organization in a very loose definition of the word. If you want to be more accurate, you’d call it a Network. Organizations (in the stricter sense) has a single leader and has a very tree-like structure with more power on top (like Corporations!), which Antifa obviously is not.
Though you’re correct in that Antifa is a “movement”.
I find this comment thread horribly ironic, and I hope I can show you why without starting an argument because this is genuinely kind of funny.
Fascism is when a state achieves (or attempts to achieve) totalitarianism through corporatization. All corporations are chartered and controlled through the state, and private industry becomes corporatized.
One of the ways they did this was through legitimizing specific channels of distribution, and labeling all who take a more independent route as illegitimate. Farmers, for example, were coerced into selling their products to state distributors, and pressured out of independent channels. Likewise, farmers who weren’t part of the state organization were often treated with suspicion and derision.
Basically, if you were a _____ and did _____ things, but were not part of the _____ organization, then you weren’t a real ______ no matter how good you are at _____.
Anyway, antifa is a real thing that exists, and that’s the thing people here are talking about. They’re a group that has identifiable goals, and they work together under the label. It’s really funny to me that so many here are appealing to “they’re not even a real org” in the face of dissent, because that’s one of the most fascist mind sets that exist commonplace today.
There is a huge overlap between people who would participate in Antifa and Anarchists, so you can imagine the problems getting a structured organization setup and keeping on task and purpose.
I’m sure that’s part of it. Antifa is definitely not well structured, and anarchists could probably be opposed to any official organization.
Let me put it this way, the post talks about a journalist who investigates antifa, which the op of this comment chain mocked because they’re not an organization. But, this is an argument of semantics, and the post didn’t use that word to begin with. Regardless of what you call antifa, he’s trying to investigate and see what they’re about.
It’s a very dishonest way to deride people. If you don’t mind me asking, if you don’t think the word organization is appropriate, what’s better? I mean I just say group, can’t really be wrong going that general but it also doesn’t say much. Like, when you said “people who participate in Antifa…”, what type of thing are those people participating in?
Organizations do not necessarily require structure, association is a synonym for a reason. Decentralized organizations and associations are a thing. Decentralized workers solidarity movements and co-op/community strengthening initiatives can be/are “organizing” even if no one is in charge. You don’t need to be a member of a union or an official neighborhood association to be part of an organization, there just needs to be general or vague common intention among a group and something of a shared identity. You might not get as much done a fast when not structurally organized, but you also don’t not exist if your not a card carrying member. I don’t understand the desire to divorce Antifa from being an organization or even existing. It’s like saying that the Deadheads aren’t a real thing because no one was directing the vast majority of fans who packed up and followed the band across the country.
I haven’t argued anything before that post, but this conversation about the semantics of the word organization means is interesting to me. To answer your question, I’d say Yes? Deadheads were a group of people associating with each other under common interest and intent. They didn’t particularly have leaders or any hierarchical structure, but they gathered in locations of common interest (concert venues and the surrounding local) based solely on individual discussion and desire, participated in the event alongside and with the group, and almost everyone participating identified as a deadhead. I really don’t understand the problem with them falling under the edge of the umbrella of the term organization.
They were an organization when viewed as an association or society: in this case a voluntary association of individuals for common ends. Deadheads were a distinct subculture in and of themselves, and I don’t understand in what universe that wouldn’t qualify. Keeping with the musician fandom, I’d say the same for the Juggalo’s. Being on the outer edge of the Venn diagram is still part of the whole picture.
Many issues with this headline, but one of them is the word journalist, which implies some form of neutrality. The headline should either be a L out a journalist that writes about antifa, or a pro-facism activist. I suspect from the context (Fox) that it’s the latter.
I believe that’s Andy Ngo, so yes, absolutely a pro-fascist activist. He was caught on camera actively coordinating with Patriot Prayer, a far-right extremist group.
The vast majority of journalists work for some sort of publication or news agency, in which they’re beholden to the company owners’ agenda and have to report to an editorial board, which decides what can and can not be published in accordance with their views.
You’re thinking of independent journalists, of which there are very few.
Ok, the fact that you honestly believe this is how legitimate newsrooms work is both deeply disheartening and an indication of how little the average person knows about the news business.
Editors decide what gets published, not the editorial board which is an entirely different and unrelated body that traditionally has zero contact with the content side of things. In the business we say that there is a “firewall” between the editorial board and actual news content. The NYT or WaPo would have mass resignations of their reporters if either of their editorial boards tried to influence content.
Ownership is a bit different and obviously --as we know from the Murdoch empire-- can influence content, but in traditional operations they’ve always been very hands-off. It’s a fact, for example, that Jeff Bezos doesn’t care what the WaPo publishes and has no interest in it beyond as a business concern.
Editors do have control over content, but overwhelmingly they are concerned with doing a good job and furthering their careers and professional reputations. You’re completely misunderstanding the incentive structure in mainstream news media. Outside of the extremist advocacy journalism ecosystems --mostly but not only on the far right-- no one has any incentive to push an agenda and risk ruining their career by getting something important wrong.
Ah yes, it’s only the evil right wing news outlets that have issues with transparency and corruption, but don’t worry, all the left wing ones are totally honest.
And all billionaires are evil exploiters… unless they own liberal newspapers, then they’re totally ethical and there is no grounds for concern.
Everybody has some sort of bias towards something. It’s ultimately just an opinion.
Journalistic integrity isn’t about being non-biased, it’s about being upfront about bias and ideally the journalist actively trying to counter their own bias within their work.
I don’t support fascisms, but I also don’t support violence and property damage to get the message across. I will never take a “movement” seriously that uses vandalism to get a message across.
One is an attempt to overthrow democracy and install a fascist theocratic dictatorship. The other is protesting directly against that. While you may not agree with their methods, which is frankly childish and placing the responsibility for our social climate in the laps of the oppressed, you cannot in good faith smile smugly and say “same”.
In that case, I suppose you also oppose the Civil Rights Movement, considering it too was often violent and had a significant amount of property damage.
But their methods were a result of their material conditions, and resulted in the liberation of Black Americans from segregation. Do you not equally take fault with the white moderates who opposed ending segregation and used disapproval of their methods as rhetoric?
Unfortunately, when protests get extreme, there is inevitably some level of violence, whether that be to people or property. It is the responsibility of the state to prevent it from getting this bad. People don’t just think “hmm, today I will do some violence,” violence erupts as a consequence.
Not what I said. If protests last long enough and are founded on unsustainable material conditions, the State has failed and protests will become Riots. “Riots are the voice of the unheard,” after all.
If you think peacefully asking people to stop being pieces of shit works, then you learned a completely whitewashed version of the Civil Rights Movement. MLK led marches and tried to maintain peace, but alongside the militant Black Panthers there was genuine revolutionary pressure that forced the state to act.
I shank them with a rusty scrap of metal to the neck
One of these is obviously worse. Yes, both are violence. Yet to simply try and paint them as such would show you’re either not arguing in good faith, or, as respectfully as possible, your brain hasn’t fully developed.
But let’s mix it up. I slap someone. But I, a man that’s 6’2" and does physical labor, slapped an infant for crying. Seems a little worse than it did at first, huh?
I am being attacked by a random person who is trying to murder me, and in a panic, I grab something, and attack him with it. Turns out it was a rusty piece of metal. Now we have hints of self defense.
Once again, still violence, but both were to different degrees, and the context changed both of them.
We live under a hostile occupation by security forces employed by the wealthy class, there are deaths everyday due to the systems maintained by wealth and greed.
I didn’t say the US was fascist, I’m saying our world is controlled by hoards of wealth and nearly all state actions are to protect that wealth and the people that hold it at the cost of the well-being of the proletariat.
Do you think people normally resort to mass murder in protest of, say, slightly decreased toilet paper thickness? If there’s an issue that is so pressing that there’s actually mass murder, then the State is an utter failure for not addressing said issue before it got to that point, and is almost certainly a fascist system.
yes, let’s hope the protestors are well adjusted and their measures are proportional. After all ideologies have never caused anyone to commit a tragedy.
People are driven by their material conditions far more than ideas. Mass protests happen for a reason, there are genuine grievances that are not being addressed. It is the responsibility of the state to properly address protests, and if they fail, they become riots.
No, violence is not good. Nobody is saying it is. However, people are correctly placing the responsibility of the origin of said violence on the oppressor, not the oppressed lashing out.
That’s quite the slippery slope fallacy. I replied to your comment of:
I don’t support fascisms, but I also don’t support violence and property damage to get the message across. I will never take a “movement” seriously that uses vandalism to get a message across.
Which at no point mentions mass murder. “Oh, you support people protesting? What about BLOWING UP THE PLANET IN PROTEST?! Is THAT okay then?”
The fact that you equate property damage with mass murder really says a lot about you.
Not really there are anti antifa centrists and leftists that are simply against extremist movements. At least where i live antifa is pretty militant so people basically group it with the fascists which is pretty ironic if you think about it. A long time ago i was also anti antifa but seeing the lenghts that “conservatives” go to fuck up everything we love im also swinging to a more violent leftism.
You would think so, but the people on my region that call themselfs “antifa” are fasist themselves. No tolerant on who you are or how you look if you are a “white straight male”. So yea, fuck the antifa organization. Im all anti facism starting with them.
Where I came from it’s the right wings, who wants you believe antifa is a criminal organisation which is far more extremist and radical than themselves.
This is just propaganda. Sure leftists use the term “antifa” more than the average not extremist people but this has nothing to do with the fact, that everyone who is against fascism is an antifa.
tl;dr: Sorting the “antifa” wording to the “baddies” is rightwing propaganda.
According to Wikipedia (I know, but it is a protected article), antifa is a loose organization of autonomous groups that use both non-violent and violent means. Based on that last part alone, I would say that is perfectly reasonable to NOT identify as antifa even if one generally agrees with their agenda.
As for vilifying the opposition, that does seem like just the thing the right wing would do to avoid taking responsibility for their own stupidity.
You just say fuck fascists, that is antifa, then you say fuck antifa that means fuck yourself? It is very simple to understand. If you are against fascism you are already antifa. Then stop. No need to fuck any more. You are the fascist and then fuck fascism because anti fascism is bad to your fascism but you hate fascism? Good luck with the self fucking puzzle
You don’t get to own a concept just by putting it in your name.
Nobody put it in their name. There is no “antifa” group. “Antifa” is a boogyman so that the far right can ignore what people are saying by labeling it “antifa”.
I remember people on reddit misgendering that antiwork mod for the crime of [checks notes] a botched interview on Fox News that didn’t even fucking matter.
It was an ugly thing to see all that transphobia out in the open like that.
It was Fox News. Even if had been a stellar interview, they would have made it look bad.
And I don’t think it had any actual impact on how people viewed the community in general. It’s just people being terminally online and blowing things way out of proportion.
I agree the interview was bad, but it’s also one of the most inconsequential parts about it. That’s the tiniest most petty reason I’ve ever seen a community tear itself apart over. It was like a bunch of mindless chickens pecking one to death because they saw a spot of blood. Definitely on brand for reddit though.
It was doomed from the start, and yet they went on anyway.
tbh I think they’d put a bad case forward even if they were given a favorable interview, considering they gave Fox more ammunition than they could ever ask for.
The misgendering and harassment is wrong, but I honestly think it’s right for the anti work community to call out how awful that interview was and distance themselves from it as much as possible. imo it did actively harm the public perception of the movement.
it did actively harm the public perception of the movement
Again, this is greatly exaggerating the nature of the situation. Even if it did, it was so minor that it could have easily recovered. It’s not like irreparable harm was caused.
Fox is not a small-time, they have more primetime viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined. If people’s first exposure to a movement is something like that interview…Several other news outlets also rehosted clips and wrote stories about just how terrible it was. That creates a strong barrier to anyone labeled as being “with” that person to overcome in order to be taken seriously. Whereas if you discovered the community where there were memes/conversations around workers rights and how they’re getting fucked the perception is much different.
It also was directly against the wishes of a community vote and mod discussion of doing a fox interview. A very good way to tell supporters of a movement that a purported “leader” doesn’t actually care about what they’re saying. To say that it was minor damage really underplays how it affected perception and unity of the community.
Hard disagree. Again, you’re blowing this way out of proportion. A movement isn’t one mod. It’s pretty clear that users were more interested in jerking their hate boners than in the movement itself.
It’s telling that even after these years, you’re still unable to gain a little healthy perspective on this. It’s really hard to admit that you were wrong, especially if you actively contributed to what was essentially a targeted harassment campaign.
This is like talking to Gamers about why death threats to devs are wrong lol
It was a Fox News interview. If the person who did the interview came off well they wouldn’t have bothered airing it. Hell, if the person they interviewed didn’t come off the way they did they wouldn’t have bothered interviewing them.
I mean I agree Fox News will pick apart anything that they get, that’s just the nature of the beast. But the whole discussion in the antiwork community was that whoever did the interview needed to be prepared for that and give them as little ammunition as possible, while presenting the beliefs of the antiwork/workreform movement.
Instead, one of the users (a mod I think?) took the interview without further input from the community, had dirty clothes in the background, and was an easy target for the Fox News crowd.
Idk, it was really unfortunate, and the movement had started to gain serious momentum. It could’ve been a lightning in a bottle opportunity, and they fucked it up
This is what I’m getting at, though. If the interviewee didn’t fit the checklist of stereotypes Fox News was looking for, there wouldn’t have been an interview aired. It was a hit piece. Fox News went looking for a way to run a segment discrediting a movement, and found one.
The anti work community had a lot of idiotic freeloaders who just didn’t want to work. After the interview when the sensible people left, it got so much worse.
Work reform was better, and came about as a result of that interview.
That sub was a joke even before that interview. They banned me for asking someone to explain why an investor shouldn’t have all the negotiating power if they are putting up 100% of the capital for a new business. Like I wanted to know how they thought that system should work because I don’t see how some random person asking for money has any leverage. I wasn’t agreeing with the current state of things.
All I got was a permaban with a childish message from a mod.
That shit was blown out of proportions, yeah. Critique is fine and all, but that ended up as straight up harassment. Fuck the people using that as an excuse for their transphobia.
But I actually started chiming in when the mod team doubled down presenting themselves as spokespeople for the movement and, in a case of “cannot possibly be timed worse“, presented some kid as a new mod? Spokesperson? I don’t remember. That whole mess got so stupid I zoned out after a while.
The mods were misfiring for sure, but what made me step away were not the mods – that could have been addressed over time – but the users. My reaction to the video and what the mods said was basically, “Oh haha, that was bad!” and I think that’s where it ended for me. I had noted issues with the mods prior to that and brought them up, and no one seemed to care at that time – I even pointed out several times that one of the mods had a stickied post on their profile specifically requesting interviews – so it’s hard for me to believe that the users were acting in good faith. Why did no one seem to care before that interview happened? But everyone got drummed up into an emotional frenzy, and that sort of thing is what tears movements apart – not one or two bad mods.
I agree the mods shouldn’t have positioned themselves as spokespeople, but there were so many other ways it could have been handled without melting down.
You think that interview didn’t matter? It basically killed the entire conversation about wage/labor imbalance. And that had zero to do with that mods gender, but with that mods absolute stupidity, regardless of gender
Yeah, whatever happened was a totally disproportionate response to a single bad interview for an audience of people who were never likely to support the movement in the first place.
I guess it’s super hard to put one’s personal feelings aside for the greater good, and it’s frighteningly easy to get drawn into dogpiling and scapegoating a single person rather than pausing and reflecting on forming a more constructive response.
Neither of the communities ever really recovered from that, and in my opinion that says a lot more about the myriad users than it does about one mod.
I… don’t think that’s the case. Last year was the year of labor wins across the board. Like, I don’t understand how to parse what has happened in the world since with this statement. Media, especially corporate owned media, is always going to be somewhat antilabor. One bad interview from one person did not impact labor’s perception in any meaningful way.
lemmy.ml
Oldest