Talk:Militant anti-fascism

message: Could someone change this sentence to make it more clear? The word but in the middle makes it sound like the action taken is different than the action suggested by the Communist Party. However, both the suggested and actual action involve the Spanish civil war. What exactly was not done that the Communist Party originally wanted to do?  "Initially, the national Communist Party leadership wanted a mass demonstration at Hyde Park in solidarity with Republican Spain, but local party activists argued against this, mobilising the local population with the chalked slogan They shall not pass, taken from the slogan of Republican Spain, No Pasaran."Spylab 14:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have done (I think). BobFromBrockley 12:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing sentence

message: Antifa refers to both "militant" and "liberal" traditions, particularly outside of the European context with groups like FDB or within the context with stuff like Searchlight. Nobody would deny either of those groups are Antifa, but neither of them organise rallies and are not particularly "militant" in the direct-actionist sense, prefering to work with other grass roots groups who are better at that sort of thing.
This just seems to confuse people, because all around the world there are people who call themselves "antifa" but are not advocates of violence. I personally have no problems with self defense , or community defense, and I would never tell an indigenous or african-american brother not to stand up for his community. But I don't think thats violence, thats self defense. It is possible to be Ghandian,Antifascist, hold strong views about class politics, AND be consistent! Duckmonster (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does Antifa point to this page 

message: Although Spylab has done a good clean-up job, I am totally unconvinced that there was a need to merge antifa with this article, a merge which was never proposed or discussed either here or at antifa. Surely these are different things? Why shouldn't there be a page on antifa? Antifa is one (perhaps one very important) strand within militant anti-fascism, but not the only one. Arguments for or against merge please? BobFromBrockley 12:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Antifa is a term from Northern Europe in the last couple of decades for militant anti-fascists connected to the anarchist, autonomist or sometimes communist scenes, with a strong connotation of a particular subculture or lifestyle (e.g. strong association with the squatting movement and punk music) and a particular ideological flavour (often strong positions on a range of forms of oppression, such as sexism). The term was almost never used, for example, around Anti-Fascist Action in the UK, and is anachronistic in relation to earlier groups like, say, the 43 Group. It seems to me that they are different enough, therefore, to warrant their own pages, in the way that Black Bloc gets a page seperate from anti-globalisation movement. But maybe I'm being pedantic...BobFromBrockley 17:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is deceptive this merge, because it states that "liberal" anti-facists are somehow not anti-fascists. This puts a euro-centric spin that excludes us Antifascists from places like Australia that have different traditions. I really wish this could be unmerged, or at least have the liberal anti-fascism (Why is non-violent and research-based antifascism 'liberal' by the way?) merged in, because this is claiming a theoretical position thats not shared outsid eof parts of europe and trying to enforce it outside of that context. Anti-fascists should know better than that! Duckmonster (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Antifa 

message: I kind of also think that some of this stuff is important too, particularly contrast with liberal anti-fascism, but don't want to just put it back in without discussion:
Militant anti-fascism' is a form of anti-fascism that advocates the use of violence against fascism, opposes depending on the state to combat fascism, and often has an orientation to working class politics. Militant anti-fascism can be contrasted with liberal anti-fascism in the following ways:   			
:*The use of violence. Militant anti-fascists believe in physical confrontation with fascism. The argument is that fascism uses non-legal means and depends for its allure on a physical presence on the streets, and therefore violence is essential to stop it. Militant anti-fascists believe in physical confrontations with fascists. They argue that fascists use non-legal means and depend on a physical presence on the streets, so violence is essential to stop it. W
:*No dependence on the state: Where liberal anti-fascists call on the state to outlaw hate speech or to prosecute fascists under existing laws, militant anti-fascism either actively opposes or does not put energy into such calls, preferring instead direct action by the citizenry. Frequently, militant anti-fascists go further, rejecting any connection with the state as contaminating anti-fascism. 		
:*Orientation to the working class: Militant anti-fascists are generally supporters of a class struggle view of politics and view fascism as first and foremost anti-working class. Because of this, militant anti-fascists tend to promote radical anti-capitalist transformation of society as an alternative to fascism, rather than defending the status quo of liberal democracy.
BobFromBrockley 12:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection, I guess all those things are there in current version, more succintly. I'm just attached to my own wording. :) BobFromBrockley 17:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuff taken out 

message: Twice an editor has changed the opening sentence from  "Militant anti-fascism is ... against fascism" to "Militant anti-fascism is ... against perceived fascism." That is not justified or correct. The opening sentence must reflect the topic indicated in the topic. Perhaps specific anti-fascists in certain times and places have targetted people who aren't technically fascists, but that is not the issue to be raised in the first sentence. And if the issue is raised later in the article, it must be backed up by reliable sources (preferably in English).  This article is about the ideology of militant anti-fascism as a whole. It is not called "Militant anti-perceived fascism." Spylab 13:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tsk tsk tsk, now you're doing yourself. If these people regularly beat the crap out of people THEY belive are fascists, then obviously the opening line is correct. Unless you can give some reliable sources that the only people getting beaten up by these people are people everyone agree's are fascists, then its obvious the targets are people who AFA and other organisations belive are fascists. Simple as that. Itake 23:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No, its about the entire anti-fascist movement. And the entire anti-fascist movement regurlarly beat the crap out of people they belive are fascists. As there are no references to back up the opening sentence in your edit, you're the one lacking proof again. Itake 17:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That they beat the crap out of people we already know, that is the point of the article. What YOU need to prove is that the people they beat are all universally labeled fascists. Itake 11:47, 5 December 2006 
(UTC)
*No, you are the one who has to come up with proof to back up your accusations. That's how the onus of proof works, on Wikipedia, in the legal system and in the media. If you make a claim, you have to support it with evidence. Simple as that. Spylab 11:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Likewise. Itake 12:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The "fact" that these people would only beat the crap out of universally recognised fascists is controversial, to say the least. Itake 15:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding my tuppence in support of intro as it was. If you add "perceived" here, you need to add it to every single article on anti- anything (e.g. anti-imperialism is against "perceived" imperialism, anti-capitalism is against "perceived" capitalism, etc, which is clearly absurd. Also, militant anti-fascism is distinguished by its use of direct action in general and violence in particular, but I'm not so bothered about that. BobFromBrockley 17:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy of opening sentence

message: The article currently says, "liberal anti-racists call on the state to outlaw hate speech", contrasting with the militants who prefer direct violent confrontation with it.  But whether liberal anti-racists advocate even this depends heavily on the country and type of liberalism.  In the Anglo-Saxon tradition of liberalism, calling on the government to outlaw hate speech is decidedly illiberal, and a liberal anti-racist would instead advocate reacting to racist speech with louder and more convincing anti-racist speech (or in some circumstances ignoring it to avoid giving it unwanted attention)—not censoring it. --Delirium 10:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: maybe that's true, but "liberal anti-fascism" is a phrase commonly used in the anti-fascist movement in this way. In fact, the term "militant anti-fascism" (as opposed to just anti-fascism) is generally used in opposition to liberal anti-fascism. An earlier version of the article (see "Stuff taken out" section of this talkpage above) made this clearer. I'll edit mildly to make this clearer again. BobFromBrockley 17:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, that makes some sense... perhaps then it should just be clarified then that the term has specific meaning in a specific milieu, and does not generally refer to all liberals who are anti-fascists. --Delirium 00:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've clarified slightly. Does this work now? I agree that the liberal anti-fascism page needs more substantial work to reflect what you're saying. BobFromBrockley 10:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Given the record of such groups pressing for initial requests for censorship, often by spreading false information or sensationalizing dubious "facts" and, if this fails, resorting to death threats or bomb scares then or physical violence itself, it would become clear to me that a lot of the groups covered by this article believe very firmly in censorship, either by the state or through their own violent means. I've edited the opening article to reflect this fact. :bloodofox: 13:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  dubious comment about liberal anti-racists 

message: Come on, we can certainly find a better anti-fascist image than a graffiti saying "nazis no". Mitsos 19:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heuw. That's hardly graffiti, it's more like... trash... Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graffiti image 

message: 1. The majority of English-speakers are familiar with the conflict between Germany and Russia circa 1941-45 as the Eastern Front campaign or the German invasion of Russia and they are typically familiar with it as part of the Second World War. Referring to it as the "Great Patriotic War" is completely unnecessary. 
2. The sentence as written "POWs captured by the Soviets during the Great Patriotic War) (Eastern Front campaign of the Second World War) in the 1940s..." is awkward and redundant. As "Eastern Front campaign of the Second World War" states the same exact thing as "Great Patriotic War" in terms that far more people will be familiar with, it is the better, more encyclopedic, and preferable, of the two choices. --71.14.67.175 (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Patriotic War vs. Eastern Front campaign of the Second World War. 

message: We need to have two different articles;
*Militant anti-fascism: detailing clashes between actual fascists and actual communists, pre-war. I'm not sure if such an article would be relevent under such a title though, as it could be WP:OR. I actually think such information could be merged with pre-existing articles such as the article on the Soviet-backed communist partisans in Italy during the 1920s to 1940s.
*Antifa: this is in relation to the most common media descriptions today and the most common contemporary organisations, which is given hardly any coverage in the main body of the article just links in the "see also" section. The "alternative lifestyler", skinhead, hardcore punk jokers on both sides which we see today have nothing to do with the original pre-war clashes between serious communists and serious fascists. antifa-vs-white nationalist groups is essential a joke or hobby clashes, with little to do with real world politics described in the article body. - Guardian of Plato (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern joke/hobby groups vs. Serious pre-war Violence

message: Taken from the wikipedia page on fascism:
"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. – Robert O. Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism"
That is an exact definition of Antifa. The events at the Cologne, Germany SIOE rally prove this. (Antifa, in collusion with government and city officials, violenty stopped the SIOE rally)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.234.79 (talk) 05:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Irony