• shneancy@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 years ago

      according to some yes, but according to normal people though, antifa is just people who don’t want nazis around them, which should be everyone?

      • Ice@lemmy.world
        0·
        2 years ago

        The fact that there is a “Yes” in the violence box (regardless of target) makes them violent extremists. Besides, from what I’ve seen, plenty of antifa folk will use violence and vandalism against people unrelated to the supposed target group.

        • frazorth@feddit.uk
          0·
          2 years ago

          Makes them violent extremists

          Only if you believe that any violence is extreme. I would disagree, punching fascists is fairly centrist and enjoys broad support.

          what I’ve seen, plenty of antifa folk will use violence and vandalism against people unrelated to the supposed target group.

          That is besides the point. You can be against facists and also against Nestle at the same time.

          • Ice@lemmy.world
            0·
            2 years ago

            I do, and where I live being the first to throw a punch towards anyone for almost any reason is generally frowned upon.

            The reason that violence is dangerous in this context is that it can allow a violent minority to oppress and subjugate a majority. By removing it from society in general and de-legitimizing its use the influence of these sorts of people can be effectively minimized.

          • Excrubulent@slrpnk.netEnglish
            0·
            2 years ago

            “Centrist” only if you use the sense of a median popular political position, which isn’t really what it means. Self-described centrists are actually conservative and tend to be weirdly* okay with Nazis.

            *weird if you don’t understand the link between capital, the state, conservatism and fascism

        • shneancy@lemmy.world
          0·
          2 years ago

          do you think WWII was won without violence mate? If nazis could be reasoned with there wouldn’t be a war in the first place. You can’t turn the other cheek to nazis, it’s just not an option, you either fight back or you die.

          • Ice@lemmy.world
            0·
            2 years ago

            That’s a terrible comparison. The same can be applied to any state with an aggressive foreign policy - or violent group intent on assailing a legitimate, elected government.

            Political violence instead tends to fuel and enlarge these sorts of radical, violent movements, ultimately worsening the situation even further. The antidote is de-legitimizing their entire strategy by enforcing non-violence on an institutional level, a peaceful transfer of power. This shows the general populace that the most dangerous thing in the room is in fact the violent extremist, who needs to be locked up the moment they break the social contract of non-violence.

        • Diva (she/her)@lemmy.ml
          0·
          2 years ago

          Centrists are currently overseeing a genocide right before our eyes and telling us that the fascists would be worse so we just have to suck it up and vote for them.

          Centrists are violent extremists

      • NekoKamiGuru@ttrpg.network
        0·
        2 years ago

        Since it is leaderless some factions of Antifa are extreme left, some are what they say on the tin and are are anti fascist, and some are crypto-fascists who have appropriated the language of antifa as a smoke screen , this last group has most of the ones who go on social media and stir up ship , and bait people, and try to turn peaceful protests into riots to discredit the protestors…

  • NekoKamiGuru@ttrpg.network
    0·
    2 years ago

    Antifa has not been taking much action against the violence directed at Jewish students at colleges around the world , despite the fact that many of these Jewish students are not Zionists, they are just identifiable as Jewish and so are conflated into being Zionists.

  • Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
    0·
    2 years ago

    Thing is left right isn’t much of a line, no matter what shape it is.

    The right is a point, they’ll get behind a populist and go to jail for them.

    The left is a scattered mess of disagreeing elements who hate each other almost as much as they hate the far right.

    And of course they both hate the dreaded “liberals”.

    • StaySquared@lemmy.worldBanned
      0·
      2 years ago

      It’s amazing that the whole of humanity, or at the very least the United States citizens haven’t realized that we’re being played. We’re being told we need to fit into this specific group or that specific group causing division. When citizens aren’t able to unite, they are more easily controllable. Identity politics is chit and so are the fans who perpetuate division.

      The only time, two opposing sides agreed… FJB

      https://www.youtube.com/shorts/BjgS_QMThRs

  • Redredme@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 years ago

    Im just a tad disappointed that according to this graphic fascism (which isnt exactly the same as nazism but whatever) is strictly a white issue.

    Which, if you look at the world, clearly isn’t the case. Fascism is everywhere.

      • Redredme@lemmy.world
        0·
        2 years ago

        Sigh.

        Nazism isn’t the same as fascism. Nazism does care about your ethnicity. Fascism does not.

        But whatever.

        • heavy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          0·
          2 years ago

          You’re not the smartest guy in the room, I think most people understand that.

          I don’t think you understand that you’re white knighting (haha) for white people like they need protecting or something, like that’s the concern here.

          It sounds like you don’t give a shit about countering fascism, you give a shit about defending white people.

          Just be mindful that you’re in an echo chamber environment here.

          Or don’t, keep fighting the fight for the whites 💪

          • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
            0·
            2 years ago

            Just cause you’ve never left your fucking basement, doesn’t mean others haven’t hung out with the hippies, burners and crazies in Portland, Vancouver, Seattle and LA for years

            • ameancow@lemmy.world
              0·
              2 years ago

              You know what’s worse than being a basement dweller? It’s being unaware that you’re vulnerable to propaganda, being unaware that you’re an emotional creature and your brain doesn’t try to make sense, it tries to connect stories and ideas to explain why you’re feeling what you feel.

              In other words, you can be a smart person and easily influenced into positions that either are not your own, or not even connected to reality just because you had a feeling once validated by someone saying the right thing at the right time and you don’t question the story that you start piecing together in your head.

              So the question you would need to always ask yourself, is what is it that you feel that you need to cling to such cynical and hateful stereotypes to the extent of even invalidating or denying the testimony of others who are directly contradicting your obviously exaggerated tales of “listening to hippies talk about jews.”

              You are describing a personal experience and because it validates some feeling you already had, it feels like a real evaluation of the broader world. Other people who do this include: scientologists, flat-earthers, modern nazis, cult members and generally people who just go through life angry and miserable and blaming that misery on others. Don’t be a pawn to others or your own brain, have some control over your narratives.

            • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
              0·
              2 years ago

              Just cause you’ve never left your fucking basement,

              So you freely and openly make up assumptions and lies about people based on whether or not they agree with you, and you expect me to believe you totally met a bunch of hippies at Portland, Vancouver, Seattle and LA. For years. You hang out with hippies all the time. Can’t leave your house without bumping into a hippie that introduces themselves to you with “I’m Antifa and I hate Jews!”

        • ameancow@lemmy.world
          0·
          2 years ago

          Well SHIT son, you lived on the COAST??

          Well that shit changes everything, I had no idea you overheard things out on the coast, I mean I was here ready to talk about crime stats and systemic inequality and the USA’s history with civil rights, but here is a person who heard some stuff out on the coast! I guess I should reconsider everything and stop supporting efforts to squash nazis in an industrial nazi-squashing machine.

      • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
        0·
        2 years ago

        Did I stutter? If I meant Israel, I would have said so. Why do people have this much trouble with direct statements? I generaly suspect they want multiple paragraphs to dissect because they can’t find what they need in concise statements.

    • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      0·
      2 years ago

      What do they say? Because I am a lifelong antifascist and communist and we love Jewish people but shun Zionism, maybe you have conflated the two.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      I mostly only hear good things about Jews from the left. I hear a lot of negative thoughts on Israel (which does not represent jews, and are just a state) and zionism. Most jews are no Israeli and/or Zionist. Many Israeli jews aren’t in favor of the current government, their actions, or zionism either. There is a clear distinction between the three, and only being against one is anti-semetic.

  • Nakedmole@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 years ago

    This is playing down the actual behavior of fascists in a very careless way.

    • They do not just kick out minorities, once in power they systematically hunt down and murder them!

    • They do not just jail dissenters, once in power they systematically hunt down and murder them!

    • They do not just “say no” to Jews, once in power they systematically hunt down and murder them!

    • yetAnotherUser@feddit.de
      0·
      2 years ago

      Not quite.

      Some fascsist do this, absolutely. Others, to appear moderate, kick out minorities and “just” jail dissenters. Will they eventually start murdering people? Absolutely.

      But nearly no fascist nowadays advocates for murder. They must first radicalize the people once in control via salami slicing tactics. If you look for fascists, do not look for people advocating for murder - they will be noticeable enough anyways. Look for those who can be described with the picture in this post.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 years ago

      Not to be defending Fascists, but those you describe are the Nazi style ones.

      Portugal, Italy, Spain and Greece too had Fascist dictatorships and those pretty much did not care about Jews or minorities and whilst they were all autoritarian and happy to use state violence for oppression and suppression of dissidents, the only ones who did anything close to systematical murder were the ones in Spain in their early days and their targets were mainly those they deemed “Communists”.

      By comparison Zionists are more murderous than all of those 4, though not as much as the Nazis, and consider and treat a whole different ethnic group as “human animals” than the Nazis did.

      In fact the use of specific ethnicities for Fascism in that table is a pretty good indication that the author(s) are deeply racist with a very specific slant on who their “good” ethnicities and “bad” ethnicities are: even without going into the whole Israel thing, just look at Modi in India to see Fascism in action whithout the perpetrators being White or the victims Jews.

      • hikaru755@feddit.de
        0·
        2 years ago

        is a pretty good indication that the author(s) are deeply racist

        Or, maybe, they’re just using the most well-known instance of fascism in history as a concrete example, in order to not overcomplicate the message. Jumping to accusations of racism at the slightest suspicion is not gonna help anyone.

        • Excrubulent@slrpnk.netEnglish
          0·
          2 years ago

          They’re doing the standard reverse racism charge, because you see, noticing racism is actually the real racism.

          In the English speaking world, anti-white racism isn’t really a thing.

          Some people will swear up and down that it is, but those people think racism is just a set of attitudes towards a race of people, and not a deeply entrenched system of oppression against entire swathes of society.

          • Aceticon@lemmy.world
            0·
            2 years ago

            Racism is seeing race as what makes people “goodies” or “badies”. The “good” races and “bad” races in your thinking being different from those of mid and early XXth century racism in Western nations is wholly irrelevant for asserting that thinking like that is being a Racist.

            The opposite of Racist is not a Racist with an opposite list of “good” and bad “races”, it’s somebody who thinks it’s not race that makes people be “good” or “bad”.

            It’s pretty telling that your entire defense of somebody else assigning race as cause of certain behaviours is to say that indeed for certain races, race is the cause of that behaviour and presume that the denial of that by others is due to the specific race which was said to be “badies”.

            • Excrubulent@slrpnk.netEnglish
              0·
              2 years ago

              Please show me where I said white people were the bad people.

              It’s not a long comment I made so it shouldn’t be hard to find it, unless I said no such thing.

              • Aceticon@lemmy.world
                0·
                2 years ago

                Yeah, you’re right on that point: you’re dividing people into behavioural groups using “English speaking world” as identity tag rather than a race.

                So the prejudice you voiced was using “geographical area of birth defined by language spoken” to presume unrelated characteristics of people, rather race.

                It was indeed incorrect and unfair of my part to accuse you of voicing prejudice by race when the prejudice you voiced was by “geographical area of birth”.

                • Excrubulent@slrpnk.netEnglish
                  0·
                  2 years ago

                  Please tell me where in my comment I said anyone were bad people because of their “geographical area of birth”.

                  It wasn’t a very long comment I made so it shouldn’t be hard to find it, unless I said no such thing.

        • Aceticon@lemmy.world
          0·
          2 years ago

          If you’re obcessed with the race of the people involved, you’re probably a racist.

          Describing Fascism as something that only victimizes a specific ethnicity - Jews, curiously forgetting other Nazi-victimized ethnicities like Roma, not to mention non-ethnic groups such as those with disabilities - is also a long running hasbara strategy of Zionists to portray themselves as impossible to be Fascists, all the while behaving as such to quite an extreme level, something extra poignant right now when they’re in the middle of committing Genocide.

          Even if all that was just the product of naivety of the author rather than something else, to limit one’s description of Fascism to only Nazis is an insult to people who lived under other Fascist dictatorships, something which just so happens to include me - just because the dictator in my homeland “only” had censorship, a secret police, political prisioners, forced labour of the natives in the “colonies” in Africa and kept the country incredibly poor except for the 9 families of the Regime, doesn’t mean that shit wasn’t Fascism because he was “equal opportunity” when it came to the ethnicity of the people he oppressed and exploited.

          The simplest explanation for somebody only seing the race angle of Fascism, only the Nazis and only a specific ethnicity they victimized when there is at least one other that they equally victimized (the Roma) is racism.

  • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.caEnglish
    0·
    2 years ago

    I just want to point out that not all fascists are Nazis. Can I point that out without getting crucified?

    I will clarify that if you’re any kind of fascist, you’re a trash person, doubly so for Nazis specifically… But not all fascists are Nazis. Which the OP chart seems to imply.

    To drive my point home, I’ll quote Wikipedia: fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

    Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

    Nowhere in there does it say that fascists are anti-Semites, nor white supremacist. Those ideologies are generally attributed to specific fascist ideologies… Eg. Nazis.

    Let’s not sugar coat what people are. If they’re Nazi fucks, let’s call them Nazi fucks.

    • pumpkinseedoil@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      2 years ago

      And if they aren’t, don’t call them Nazis. For example I strongly disagree with the term “grammar nazi” that English speaking people sometimes use for people who point out grammatical flaws in comments or articles - that may sensitise people to view the term lightly, not taking it seriously when someone seriously is a nazi. Apart from that it’s a cruel joke towards the people who suffered under the nazi regime or died fighting it.

      • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.caEnglish
        0·
        2 years ago

        I agree with this. We need better terms.

        Nazis were such a heinous and specific evil that we probably shouldn’t do anything that could lighten that term. At all.

        The part that makes me sad is that they appropriated the symbol of the swastika, and made it into a visage of hate and oppression. It’s a religious symbol for luck.

        I don’t think that reputation is changing anytime soon.

        The Nazis destroyed a lot, and corrupted so many things by association.

  • алсааас [she/her]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    0·
    2 years ago

    The main job of fascism is to protect capital when the majority of the working population grows disillusioned with capitalism and might get the wrong ideas about socialist revolution and stuff

  • ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml
    0·
    2 years ago

    Horseshoe theory is dumb, but it’s really just an observation of the loudest ideologies on the far left and far right, which both happen to be authoritarian. Authoritarianism becomes necessary as you move toward the extremes because you have to coerce some people/classes to accept the system. And it’s true that real-world instances of both Fascism and Communism have been authoritarian, and so they share some things in common. It isn’t a particularly nuanced or deep understanding, but it is true that authoritarian forms of gov’t are authoritarian. The difference lies in the details. Communists used authoritarianism against capitalists and the nobility, and fascists used it against minorities. Horseshoe theory conflates “authoritarianism” with extreme Left and Right-wing ideologies.

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      Authoritarianism becomes necessary as you move toward the extremes because you have to coerce some people/classes to accept the system.

      Do you consider anarchists and anarchocommunists to be extremists? Or authoritarian?

      • ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml
        0·
        2 years ago

        Extremists? Sure - they are, by definition, as they are outside of normal, status quo political ideologies. Authoritarian? No of course not. Anarchists are anti-authoritarian. I’m only saying that past communist states (namely PRC and USSR) have been authoritarian and fascist states have also been authoritarian.

        Obviously modern neoliberal states are also authoritarian, but the classic horseshoe is almost exclusively applied to fascism and communism. Since it is incoherent as a political theory, I’m sure you could apply it similarly to any polar opposite ideologies and come up with something they share in common.

        • Excrubulent@slrpnk.netEnglish
          0·
          2 years ago

          You might want to consider that those who call themselves leftist may not actually be leftist.

          For instance, “Nazi” is short for “national socialist”. They are clearly right wing, however, if you pay attention to their actions.

          So-called socialist states are generally deeply repressive and that is not left wing. They were better at branding than the Nazis, but for instance the USSR neutered the soviets - the workers’ councils after which the state was named - very soon after taking power. The state owned rhe means of production, not the workers. It was state capitalist. After that workers had to strike just like under any other capitalist regime, and they were brutally repressed by the state.

          Under no honest description of socialist does that qualify. So they failed on both the “Soviet” and “Socialist” parts of their name.

          Horseshoe theory is just capitalists happily buying into the USSR and other state capitalists’ self mythology about being socialist because it’s good propaganda to scare the workers they rule over into believing that there is no alternative to neoliberalism’s stochastic brutality.

          • ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml
            0·
            2 years ago

            If we understand “Leftism” to be about a relationship to the means of production - namely one in which the workers/plroletarian class owns the means of production - then the USSR certainly was socialist/leftist to a significant degree.

            Since leftism is about that relationship to the means of production, that also means that a government can be both Leftist and Authoritarian. We can discuss to what degree an ideal leftist government should be “authoritarian”, but that is less a conversation about the economic aspects of leftist political ideology and more about the political philosophy around personal freedoms, freedom of speech, etc. - none of which are completely cut & dry.

            One could easily argue that some degree of “authoritarianism” is necessary to protect greater freedoms at the expense of lesser ones - that could be a coherent pro personal freedom and pro authoritarian argument. One could also argue that the anarchist conception of personal freedom is doomed to fail without an “authoritarian” power hierarchy to protect those freedoms. All I’m saying is the question of to what degree the power of the state should be limited is by no means answered.

            • Excrubulent@slrpnk.netEnglish
              0·
              2 years ago

              Ownership means having power, having control, over the thing you own.

              An authoritarian government that maintains control over the means of production, no matter how much they nominally “belong” to the workers, inherently alienates the workers from having power and therefore from ownership. In that sense it is state capitalist.

              You cannot have it both ways unless you change the meaning of words like “own”, or “authority”. Your own description of leftism precludes authoritarian methods.

    • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
      0·
      2 years ago

      Authoritarianism becomes necessary as you move toward the extremes because you have to coerce some people/classes to accept the system.

      Why is this only necessary at the extremes? I don’t want to accept the current system I live under, but I’m coerced into complying with it through force (police).

      • ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml
        0·
        2 years ago

        I’d argue that: 1) what is extreme changes over time, 2) a system of government being extreme de facto means it will have less support, if it had more support it would cease to be extreme, 3) the less support a system of government hass, the more force will be required to maintain it.

        I am also under a system of government that is oppressive and monopolizes violence, but if the government had less popular support, I fully believe it would proportionally ramp up the oppression and violence. In fact, I’d argue that it’s currently happening in the US.

        • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
          0·
          2 years ago

          I don’t know that I agree with your definition of extreme. On the one hand, there’s popularity of various ideas, and on the other, there’s how much the idea differs from the way things are currently done. It’s possible for an idea drastically different from the status quo to be popular, but it would still be considered extreme because of how big of a change it would be.

  • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    2 years ago

    Remember kids, it’s not hypocrisy to be intolerant of the intolerant. They have broken the social compact and are therefore no longer protected by it.