[Marxism] Fwd: Debunking the 3 Biggest Myths About Antifa

A.R. G amithrgupta at gmail.com
Sat Sep 2 20:50:30 MDT 2017

*I should clarify, as to the substance of this broken clock's argument, I
think he's off. The fact that antifa groups also do non-violent things
(like fundraising and community work and so on) has nothing to do with
whether or not they are violent, and it is very strange to see Sunshine try
to downplay Antifa's violence rather than what I've seen from his type in
other places, which is to justify it rather than minimize it. The same
language he is using about how anti-fascist groups are primarily not
involved in violence can be made for any number of violent groups,
including the cops. It's not like every police officer shoots someone every
day, and cops might also do good-will gestures to the community. Hardly an

The second point is irrelevant given that there isn't any moral equivalence
over what the two groups are fighting for, so whether or not they are both
violent should be besides the point. An awfully unnecessarily defensive
line of argument. Moreover, from the stats that he has collected (assuming
they are correct) it sounds like neither group is particularly significant
in terms of causing deaths. He says far-right groups have killed 450 people
since 1990, in what appears to be mostly hate crimes and clashes with
leftists. Obviously a terrible thing, but over the course of 27 years that
is not particularly significant relative to crime generally in the United
States, particularly given that there is no evidence that these crimes were
carried out by a single, organized group.

The last part is totally off. The reason there is such a strong backlash
against the far-right has nothing to do with Antifa, unless by "Antifa" he
means literally anyone that opposed the Nazis. These groups have largely
faced significant backlash due to their own poor form, including Anglin's
decision to degrade and dehumanize Heather Heyer as well as the inability
of other far-right groups to have the kind of necessary organizational
structure to police their membership. Likewise, these far right groups were
demanding a particular form of far-right extremism that has always been
unable to make the kinds of in-roads as, say, the Tea Party. They are
flailing around Nazi arm-bands and defending two fallen regimes that
collapsed in part due to America's wars. Even those who have sought to
defend the Confederacy have tried to distance themselves from overt white
supremacy; these people didn't. So it would be a surprise if there *wasn't* a
strong backlash against the far-right after Cville. He's also wrong to
conflate what happened there with what happened to the Yiannopolous event
at Berkeley. The truth is that Yiannopoulos' events had been targeted by
Antifa at virtually every venue; Berkeley was the first time that there was
so much property damage as well as police repression that the cops called
it off. It may have triggered greater scrutiny on him (which resulted in
someone digging up his nasty pedophile comments) but there's hardly a chain
of causality, and in fact the event triggered quite a bit of
*positive* publicity
for Yiannopoulos including press coverage on Bill Maher (who is frankly a
much bigger piece of crap because he has greater influence).

I'm not dismissing violence as a strategy outright but the article itself
is self-aggrandizing talking points for the small cult that they have
formed. It's also worth noting that in spite of the willingness to use
violence, it appears that these groups have almost completely avoided any
form of violence that is lethal; it almost seems like they are having fun.
Furthermore, despite all the posturing they don't seem to have politics
beyond their rejection of fascism. If Spencer Sunshine is indicative, that
can mean practically anything to the incoherent types that show up in these
cults, including various left-wing causes and communities.

- Amith

More information about the Marxism mailing list