The main argument is that the means dictates the ends, so if we want a non violent (and non opressing) society, punching people won’t help.

And this failed logic is exactly why we are where we at right now, on the brink of the Fourth Reich rising across the US and Europe.

Because tolerant people have forgotten the most important thing about a tolerant society.

That it must be rigorously and viciously defended from those who seek to exploit the social contract to elevate their attacks on it, and it requires far more than words and wind to achieve that… again, as evidence of where we are now as a society. Because their ultimate goal is to undo the society we love, and replace it with oppression, fear, and hatred.

The biggest advocates for non-violence are white cis heterosexual men. It is the failure to recognize the multifaceted nature of violence itself. Punching a Nazi can mean that other Nazis stop looking up to them, and they stop being able to effectively organize.

You should be selective and strategic with who you punch. Typically you will want to go for leadership, or the guy who offers a connection between two groups that you consider a risk.

That being said, you should also consider that you probably aren’t going to have as much success punching a Nazi on their terms. A lot of them are into their gym and guns so it tends to be to your advantage to catch them alone when you are in a group. Sometimes the opportunity will come after one of their demonstrations when they are walking to their car. Other times, it can be useful to find where they live and work.

Punching Nazis isn’t an everyday thing but its unrealistic to claim it isn’t sometimes necessary. It works very effectively as part of a bigger picture. Alongside it, you can put stickers on their doors in the middle of the night. If the circumstances arise, you can do silly stuff like convincing one that another fascist is sleeping with his equally shitty wife.

Anarchism isn’t non-violent. To assume anti-oppression and pacifism are one and the same is to make the same mistake Engels makes in On Authority.

Authority is violent, but violence is not authority.

Edit: on this topic I’d recommend Anark’s video on Power, where he explains that anarchism seeks to create a horizontal power structure. It is not the absence of power structures, it displaces oppressive power structures with egalitarian ones.

Fascists don’t respond to logic or reasoning, they know only violence so you should speak to them in a language they understand

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131857.2018.1519772

Violence in a vacuum? Deplorable. Violence against a person preaching or encouraging violence? Questionable. Violence against a known fascist? Absolutely acceptable.

Fascists hide in the grey areas of free speech and often make arguments, much like this post OP, that twist ethics to support their rhetoric.

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/19/544641070/explaining-again-thenazis-true-evil

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism–intentionalism_debate

You may want to investigate the original author of the anarchist cookbook William Powell. He later wanted to remove the book from publication.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Powell-American-writer

Also please do not follow any of the recipes, especially the match head bomb as they’re all a great way to lose fingers

So in conclusion, considering your original points sound similar to the historical defense of fascists, and that book looks to carry the language of fascists.

How serious is the author of that book about not getting punched?

I’m surprised no one seems to have mentioned the Paradox of Tolerance. Essentially if you tolerate intolerance, the intolerants will eventually seize power and make an intolerant society, the only way a society can become truly tolerant is by being intolerant towards intolerance.

It’s paradoxical, but makes absolute sense. If you allow Nazis to spread their ideology eventually there will be enough Nazis to be able to take the power by force, and when they do they’ll setback all of the tolerance that was advanced. The only way to prevent it is by cutting the evil at the root and prevent Nazis from spreading their ideology.

Personally I believe that punching a person who hasn’t tried to attack me or anyone is wrong. But the moment someone openly preaches that someone else must be exterminated they’re inciting violence which can encourage others to act on it, to me, morally speaking, attacking that person is as much self defense as if they were commiting the act themselves.

Would I personally punch a person because they’re spewing hate? Probably not, I would probably try to talk to them and understand their point of view and try to convince them otherwise, since I believe that punching them would make the person close himself to any reasoning from outside of his group, which would make him more Nazi than before. But I also don’t think it’s morally wrong to do so, it’s just not the optimal way of dealing with it.

I’ve punched plenty of nazis. They try to infiltrate our punk and metal scenes and cause shit, being one of the bigger guys there who also has training, it’s my responsibility to help make sure they don’t fucking stick around.

You can try and go the pacifist route with these people, but I know from experience that it doesn’t do Jack shit, and they’ll keep coming back with their dumb bullshit, and more and more will start showing up unless you shut that shit down hard.

See the thing about the supposed cycle of violence is that it implies equal fault and innocence of both sides. It relies on toleration theory.

Toleration is a treaty, when you break it you are no longer protected by it. It is an entirely justifiable and moral act to instigate violence against fascists, because their very ideology is a violation of the treaty of toleration, and their organization is one which cannot sustain itself in the face of repeated attacks.

You often hear complaints about how enforcing internet rules against the fascists just leads to whackamole bans, but the thing is that every successive ban leaves the fascists less coordinated, less emboldened, and more isolated. There is a critical point of punitive and preventative acts where a fascist org is effectively atomized and anyone worth pulling out has been rock bottomed into a holding space where they can be rehabbed.

Peaceful methods are what can be achieved after you’ve destroyed them, either through hounding operations making it less and less possible for them to group up and act together, or by normalizing violence and intolerance against them to the extent that they are at least afraid enough to stop trying to not be sniveling cowards such as the fascist naturally is.

The true fascist is only kept quiet in an environment of fear, where they know that trying to stick their heads up will get it lopped off in short order. An environment where even peacible means of antifascism still include complete social ostracism and career destruction, and where persistent fascism is met with swift and appropriate violent rejection.

Don’t just punch the Nazis, dox them to their families and employers and communities, encourage others to be armed and ready to attack preemptively in their presence, organize around making that Nazi specifically know their rightful place is silent and afraid until they’ve cut the shit and stopped being a nazi, before someone ends up killing them in self defense.

Personally I believe violence should only be used in defense of self or innocent people around you from imminent threats, never otherwise. Use words to fight words, use ideas to fight ideas, use fists to fight fists, guns to fight guns or knives. Straight pacifism to the degree of foregoing defense seems naive to me, but so does using violence for anything but defense from violence.

My great grandfather would have shot them. He did shoot them. For King and Country. And I’m proud of this fact 😎🇬🇧

I’m just gonna focus entirely on the common misunderstanding of the use of violence against Nazis in WWII because that’s such a common argument for punching nazis and it’s really quite wrong on so many levels.

“But Nazis were stopped by violence in WWII.” That’s a meaningless statement without the missing last word. Violence stopped Nazis militarily, after they had already seized power in Germany and were invading other countries. Today we’re not in a military battle with Nazis, we’re in an ideological battle.

So why did the Nazis seize power in Germany? Because they weren’t punched enough? Well the exact mechanism behind how the nazis seized power is a complex web of illegal political maneuvers, political violence, and yes, some degree of ideological success by the nazis. But a key part of that ideological success was the fear of political violence by their opponents - most notably the Reichstag fire - to justify the power that they were illegally taking. It was basically “desperate times require desperate measures”. So in the ideological battle, the perceived* use of violence by Nazi opponents was actually a key part of their victory within Germany.

Meanwhile, over in the US, the contrast between the violence employed by the German American Bund (the US version of the Nazi party) and largely Jewish peaceful protesters ended up being a massive embarrassment to the Bund from which they never recovered. Again, ideologically, non-violence proved quite effective.

Point being, and this should be obvious - violence is a really bad option for succeeding in an ideological battle. Yes, in a military battle, it’s the only rational option. But in an ideological battle, it’s actually counterproductive.

*Obligatory caveat that whether the Reichstag fire was actually set by nazi opponents remains debated, but suffice to say the political atmosphere at the time made it plausible.

don’t use violence, if you value your life. violence is for idiots.

there’s the tolerance paradox: you should use the least amount of violence that keeps society (and your own life) stable.

I am serious that they should be punched. I am a non-violent person, so I hope that someone better fit for the job does it. If faced with a nazi that I think I can take or one that I think I can sorta take, I might punch them myself.

I didn’t think this way until I read, Culture Warlords: My Journey Into the Dark Web of White Supremacy, by Talia Levin. After, I am firmly in the “punch a nazi” camp.

Violence and nonviolence, in the face of violent, intolerant ideologies such as Nazism, or even colonoalism, is not as clear cut as it gets made out to be. I think primary arguments for violence are often misunderstood and taken out of context.

I don’t think it’s a moral question, as moral reasoning seems to lead to either 1. Violence is always wrong or 2. Violence is a moral imperative against certain enemies, for to do nothing is to permit and assent to the violence that they inflict. Neither of these absolutes are adequate within actual consequences, although both views definitely have to their credit historical circumstances where these strategies were arguably successful and progressive.

However i think there are important lessons on violence and nonviolence that can be learned from various historic examples:

1. Individual violence against individuals does not advance progressive goals. Individual violence merely strengthens the status quo against that violence, and can be used to justify mass violence of the state or militias against masses of people, usually a targeted minority.

2. Nonviolence tactics can be effective against state or military repression, but state and military roles in genocidal campaigns, or participation in extrajudicial violence shows that otherizing is effective at dehumanizing, and in order to be effective must consciously and effectively humanize the nonviolent activists to the oppressing forces in order to introduce contradictions into their justifications and create splits within the ruling classes of the oppressing powers. This is a long term strategy so you have to make sure that whoever you are nonviolent resisting isn’t gonna just kill everyone, which they will try to do, even if it is against their interests to do so.

3. Violence may be immediately necessary to protect human life, in the short term or in the long term. The fact is violent repression creates the conditions for violent resistance escalation of violence sharpens the contradictions already present in the status quo and creates splits among the various classes in an oppressor/oppressed dialectic. In this way violent resistance can galvanize both violent and nonviolent forms of resistance for your side, but it also does so for the other side. Therefore violence should be avoided if possible, but if violence is perceived as defensive or necessary it can have progressive or even revolutionary consequences on consciousness and material conditions.

So the conditions that introduce struggle and violence are social contradictions, not necessarily a conscious choice by individuals intending to do violence, although sometimes it is.

So for my part, as an American with that perspective, I’ve become fond of the concept of “armed nonviolent defense.” An example of this is the Deacons of Defense and Justice that proliferated in the south during desegregation. Groups of black men took up arms to defend their communities from Klan violence, and provided security for MLK, CORE; as well as forcing the Klan underground in the south for a generation or two. So organized citizens defending their communities and working together with political groups and revolutionaries to defend against violent reaction without the progressive political movement taking it upon itself to be a violent one.

This is an immense and complex topic and the rightness or wrongness of it is contingent on the historical conditions that are present. So understanding “correct” usages of violence and non violence doesn’t extend from our moral obligations, but our obligations to the real world, each other and the future of our movements.

That’s funny because I read a book (The Failure of Nonviolence) that pretty convincingly argues that no movement has truly accomplished its goals without either outright violence or relying on the threat of violence from aligned parties.

Depends on the context, and how serious and violent the Nazi. If they’re just an isolated idiot who isn’t politically active and isn’t stupid or thick-headed enough to actually follow through on their claimed beliefs, then violence isn’t really justified. They’re an idiot, but not a threat. The problem is with anymore more dedicated or crazy than that. Past that point, you immediately get to people who want to murder or enslave hundreds of millions. Thats not hyperbolic, that’s literally the goal of Nazi beliefs, and a logical extention of almost every belief that stems out of it or is adjacent to it. In theory, yes, it’d be nice to be able to talk down people like this, or use existing systems of power to force them to places where there isn’t a risk of them trying to murder or enslave people, but unfortunately, when you’re talking about groups who don’t respect human lives, the law, or anyone but their designated, arbitrary in-group, then those aren’t always viable means. This is esspecially true if that person is already in a potition of power. Basically, if someone wants to kill you, you can’t always wait for them to successfully aquire the means to do so before acting. This isn’t hyperbole or metaphor, this is literally what we’re talking about here. The problem is in drawing a line of who is an actual threat, and if there are other means to “disarm” them.