Anitfa Uses Facist Tactics To Further Totalitarian Marxism

First and foremost you do not seem to know what fascist means. You accuse Antifa using fascist tactics because they showed "a willingness to use violence to shut down ideas counter to those of Antifa". That isn't what fascist means at all. As per Merriam Webster's. .. "Definition of fascism - 1 (often capitalized) : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition 2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control" In no way does showing a simple willingness to use violence to shut down ideas counter to their own qualify under either of these definitions. So right there you lost this debate, and I strongly suggest looking up the key terms you use in before starting debates in the future. So the REAL question here is whether or not it is correct to blame Antifa for these actions, and also whether or not the actions were wrong (despite obviously NOT being "fascist" in nature). The answer on both counts is of course a resounding no and I will gladly explain why. Antifa is a movement, not an organization. They have no appointed or elected leadership. They cannot collectively condemn the actions of subgroups or kick people out. So if one subgroup on one occasion engages in violence this does not make it correct to say "Antifa is violent". At most you can say SOME factions associating themselves with the UMBRELLA term of "Antifa" have engaged in violence. To put this on Antifa as a whole would clearly be no different than saying "all Christians are into protesting the funerals of gay soldiers" just because the Westboro Baptists do it. And as for whether or not it was wrong to use violence to shut down their opposition you must understand that sort of thing is done so, and righteously, ALL the time. In America alone it was done by the colonies during the revolution, by the abolitionists during the civil war, by the allies during WW2, etc. , etc. , etc. And if you're going to say "it's not war" then I would disagree, and point out that nearly all wars were originally precipitated by acts of violence. .. righteous or otherwise. .. that happened beforehand, and thus occurred outside the actual time of war. And I would further argue that the war which Antifa is now fighting was in fact precipitated long ago via the systemic violence of economic disparity resulting in wage slavery for the 99% of the population who actually contribute to society. Let me be clear: I am NOT advocating violence. But I am willing to recognize that the most necessary changes throughout human history have ALWAYS required it. And that without people bold enough to fight with fists instead of signs we'd all still be living as peasants under feudal lords, at least if we were lucky enough not to be outright slaves. Now if you would like to learn more about the economics at play in the justification of Antifa's violence I will happily educate you on that subject in more detail. But unless you can somehow connect "shows a willingness to use violence to shut down ideas counter to those of Antifa" with the actual definition of fascism which I pasted from Webster's then I think the most honorable thing for you to do here would be to concede the debate, or at least change your terminology to something which actually fits the situation in Berkley that you described in your post. Because the word "fascism" clearly doesn't apply here.