Facist Polish Immigrants Attack Music Fest in North London!

[Sammy G]

You must notice though that even if the 'extreme' left sometimes become violent, they're mostly not inherently about violence like the extreme right are (facsism is about domination and 'might is right') - and when pockets of the left seem to be about violence it's pretty much always in reaction to inherent violence of the extreme right (bloody reactionaries eh?).

No. I don't agree. Baader-Meinhof, Revolutionäre Zellen, countless Italian groups - are you trying to tell me that they were meek and mild until their capitalist oppressors forced them down the path of violence?

And yes, I know about the structural violence inherent in the capitalist system, but let's not go down that road, eh?

Simply put, I believe both are manifestations of a masculine desire for power and dominance. I see you dropped in 'might is right' as evidence of fascism's inherent tendency toward violence, but what about the bloodlust and coercion that has inevitably accompanied any large-scale 'leftist' revolution? Surely that amounts to 'might is right', albeit with the addition of a dangerous self-righteousness which leftist ideologies, by their nature, tend to foster.

Two sides of the same shitty coin. No thanks.

 

[THECATINTHEHAT]

You must notice though that even if the 'extreme' left sometimes become violent, they're mostly not inherently about violence like the extreme right are (facsism is about domination and 'might is right') - and when pockets of the left seem to be about violence it's pretty much always in reaction to inherent violence of the extreme right (bloody reactionaries eh?).

If you only use the term 'extreme' when there is actual nasty violence, the left and right would not compare in numerical terms. (eg would you call the weather underground extreme in the same way as a nazi group? - they planted hundreds of bombs damagaing capitalist property, but never killed anyone (except themselves in bomb-making accidents)

My take on the OP is - don't conflate facists with a particular race (motes and beams and that) - these facsists are on one side with our and other countries' fascists, against our and other countries' non/anti-fascists.

You realise that it is estimated that Stalin killed over a million of his own citizens right?

 

[Sammy G]

More to the point, the thread title refers to the alleged perpetrators as 'Facists'.

Is that some previously-unknown movement whose members seek to revive an iconic-yet-long-forgotten eighties / nineties magazine?

 

[Vurtual]

There are obviously some violent leftist groups, but they're much less likely inherently about violence (even though that's no comfort to the person being beaten). It's about fairness, equality, and all that progressive jazz, and that's what it's about, even though these ends often get lost in the violent means (why i like Bakunin's phrase "the means become the ends"). Facsism is about violence, domination and righteous inequality. I'm not saying at all that the left's violence is necessarily better than the right's violence (it's still violence).

And when judging the violence of european 'leftists' from the 60s and 70s, make sure you know which ones were tools of NATO's operation Gladio and the 'strategy of tension' (like many/most of the italian 'left' terrorism, and i think elements of bahder-meinhoff). This is real-life proven consipracy whose job was to discredit the left, and it worked (ironically by employing fascists to pretend to be leftists). Not saying all violent leftists were gladio, but a lot of them were. To your baader meinhoff, i respond with the weather underground (whacky, but non-violent)

Plus i was talking about the left and right groups of today - show me the contemporary violent leftists (and don't say china), and tot the numbers up compared to the neo-nazis.

(and i don't think it's valid to use stalin as an example of left wing, when he was basically a state/monopoly capitalist (like china/usa/uk) and a dictator (you can't be a left wing dictator imo) - lenin had already gone a bit totalitarian (ie not left wing) before stalin came along (apologists would say he had to because the whole 'free world' invaded)

 

[Sammy G]

There are obviously some violent leftist groups, but they're much less likely inherently about violence (even though that's no comfort to the person being beaten). It's about fairness, equality, and all that progressive jazz, and that's what it's about, even though these ends often get lost in the violent means

Idealistic nonsense.

It's all about piss, vinegar and testosterone. Or occasionally, getting laid by the cute vegan chick in the wholefoods shop.

show me the contemporary violent leftists (and don't say china), and tot the numbers up compared to the neo-nazis.

A lot of the violent groups the media describes as 'fascist' have little or no political ideology whatsoever (not that fascism can be clearly defined anyhow). They're generally nationalist in nature, and often racist / xenophobic bigots, but by that logic, every other drunken lout in a cell on a Saturday night is a 'fascist'.

 

[Vurtual]

Idealistic nonsense.

It's all about piss, vinegar and testosterone. Or occasionally, getting laid by the cute vegan chick in the wholefoods shop....

But it's clearly not just about that - you're maybe showing your own prejudices i think...

I take your point about the thugs not being that political, but the actual ideologies of fascism include the cultivation and use of those thugs by more sohpisticated non-thugs (hitler, goebbels, griffin, glen beck). While the leaders of a fascist style party is probably an intellectual, they want to encourage anti-intellectualism to make their rule easier (like the neo-cons in the usa). Lefty ideology would have trouble recruiting that type i think (xenophobia doesn't fit with universality). Facsism is more than just being a thug or bigoted, but its natural footsoldiers tend to be that way.

As for it being idealistic - as opposed to realistic? Nothing would ever change without a bit of idealism. Be realistic, demand the impossible!

 

[Sammy G]

But it's clearly not just about that - you're maybe showing your own prejudices i think...

Prejudices? If you count distrust of political extremists of either a left or right bent as 'prejudice' (which I suppose it is, after a fashion ) then yes.

Personally, I'd attribute it to life experience and a resultant distaste for dogma in all of its forms. Though admittedly it may well have been tainted by failed attempts to get laid with the cute vegan chick in the wholefoods shop. :D

 

[Vurtual]

I'm with you on the distaste for dogma (left or otherwise) or any vanguardist types, but i was more talking about the wholefood chick actually (seems i may have been right ).

But you have to notice the difference surely. Finding an example of a leftist who's as cunty as a fascist doesn't do for evidence - you have to look at the whole sweep of history, numbers involved in offensive violence, motivation, actual tactics used, ideologies espoused (racism etc) to judge between them. to me it seems obvious which is the most moral of the two sides, even out to the extremes (depends on your source of history i suppose). You don't have to commit to any side to have a bit of nuance.

The idealism and 'extremisms' of the left have brought us all our nice progressive laws over the last two centuries (can't think of many freedoms that facsism, or even conservatism have won for us, except free trade (ha!) and freedom from even more freedoms (like freedom from inequality/poverty)).

 

[One Thousand Words]

Paleo is the new vegan.

 

[Ismene]

The idealism and 'extremisms' of the left have brought us all our nice progressive laws over the last two centuries (can't think of many freedoms that facsism, or even conservatism have won for us, except free trade (ha!) and freedom from even more freedoms (like freedom from inequality/poverty)).

Unfortunately there's different kinds of left tho - the sane english socialist type and then you have the Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot type who made Hitler seem like small fry.

 

[Vurtual]

It's a fair point i suppose depending how you define the left. For me left is as left does (but as most people define it, you're totally correct). Though if you can have stalin/mao/polpot, i've got to have all the 19th century european empires, the british and the us empire (and the scales are back where they were roughly).

Though i still think, however nutty stalin was, the revolution itself was originally largely egalitarian and democratic. It was keeping hold of the state that was the error (that's why i'm an anarchist).

 

[Sammy G]

The idealism and 'extremisms' of the left have brought us all our nice progressive laws over the last two centuries (can't think of many freedoms that facsism, or even conservatism have won for us, except free trade (ha!) and freedom from even more freedoms (like freedom from inequality/poverty)).

Can you attribute all these 'nice progressive laws' and freedoms to the left though? Only if you equate 'left' with 'progressive'. Which there's an argument for in one sense, but at the same time it's an obvious fallacy.

A hell of a lot of those freedoms were won by people whose egalitarian beliefs stemmed from their religious / moral convictions rather than 'leftist' ideology, and certainly not from Marxism. Look at the history of the Labour Party; look at the Catholic Worker movement in Italy. Would you call these people 'left wing'? Or simply progressive and egalitarian?

One example of leftist ideology actually doing damage to society and reversing social mobility is the comprehensive school system, which, for all its high minded ideals, actually condemned generations of working-class children to attending glorified 'secondary moderns', whilst those who were able to move their kids to an area with better schools, or simply pay, did so. Predictably.

Some of the barmier trade unionists probably did more to bolster Thatcher's rise to power than anyone, and along with Militant, they effectively condemned Britain to more than a decade of Tory rule, as Labour repeatedly shot itself in the foot before splitting acrimoniously. Again, blinkered, robotic leftist ideology, whether you believe in trade unions or not (I do, incidentally).

You can't attribute every progressive measure to 'the left' any more than you can attribute all social evils to 'the right'.

 

[Vurtual]

Well i certainly don't define the left as only marxism and its offshoots, or as particularly ideology based. And i acknowledge it's a chequered history, but to me the left is progressiveness - change instead of stasis; Revolution instead of reaction; equality instead of privelige; justice instead of power (conservatism pretty much fits those statements in reverse). It's a description of a process rather than necessarily a specific ideology (not the dreaded dialectic!). So i do think that the good stuff was fought for by little(r) people against the powerful - which is the essence of socialism (even if the people involved never heard of socialism).

Anyway, i'm waffling and know no more than the rest of you - just my humble bullshit opinions

edit: and as for the unions in the 80s - we don't know what it might have been like to have a socialist govenrment in britain (say under tony benn or michael foot) because the whole weight of the establishment and media made sure that wouldn't happen (like they do against scottish independence (but with less bile)). The government and establishment pulled all manner of dirty tricks against the left to make it into what it is now (sounds paranoid but the evidence is strong - eg Operation Mockingbird, miners' strike or the threatened 'coup' against Harold Wilson)

 

[Sammy G]

to me the left is progressiveness - change instead of stasis; Revolution instead of reaction; equality instead of privelige; justice instead of power. It's a description of a process rather than necessarily a specific ideology (not the dreaded dialectic!). So i do think that the good stuff was fought for by little(r) people against the powerful - which is the essence of socialism (even if the people involved never heard of socialism).

As I suspected.

Do yourself a real favour and just maintain your ideals, but ditch any hoary old 'leftist' baggage or allegiances (whether real or sentimental) which you may have forged over the years. Makes it easier to influence the views of people who might otherwise lump you in with the Marxist goons.

 

[Vurtual]

Marx had good ideas as an economist (which is what he was) - the trouble came when trying to turn his ideas into a political strategy (even he did this a bit later on). I'm an anarchist, by far the more coherent tradition on the left imo - it's very coherence comes from it's lack of specific ideologies to get dogmatic about over time. Though i lean toward the anarcho-syndicalist (go the wobblies). It's all about practical pragmatic solutions and justice, so isn't so prone to ideology-based insanities (like some (not all) marxists)

You can often tell (imo) how right something is by who is against it (look at climate change): the anarchists are hated by all statists, 'communist' 'capitalist' or otherwise - as shown by the spanish civil war, and the early bit of the russian revolution (when lenin turned on mahkno and the 'left communists' (anarchists)).

(anarchy is order )

I'm still on the same side as the marxists (ie the left), until they start getting dictatory

 

[Ismene]

Though if you can have stalin/mao/polpot, i've got to have all the 19th century european empires, the british and the us empire (and the scales are back where they were roughly).

Not so sure vurtual - I think Mao just on his own got through 45 million in 4 years.

Though i still think, however nutty stalin was, the revolution itself was originally largely egalitarian and democratic

I've even gone off Lenin lately - you read some of the secret orders that bald cunt issued and it was "Kill the bastards, as many as we can. Have no mercy".

 

[Sammy G]

I'm of anarcho-syndicalist leanings myself (have been since I read Orwell at 16 and found out what the hell it meant), though it's been years (as in probably sixteen) since I really immersed myself in it. I turn to the Situationists for most of my inspiration these days, and have for a while. Which is fitting, as it's the artier and less theoretical end of the spectrum, and really appeals to the pretentious and intellectually lazy guy like me whilst still talking some profound sense.

And aye, economists doing politics is like accountants running design departments. Although come to think of it, we have both right here and right now.

 

[Ismene]

Some of the barmier trade unionists probably did more to bolster Thatcher's rise to power than anyone, and along with Militant, they effectively condemned Britain to more than a decade of Tory rule, as Labour repeatedly shot itself in the foot before splitting acrimoniously. Again, blinkered, robotic leftist ideology, whether you believe in trade unions or not (I do, incidentally).

Although in hindsight was the leftist critique right? Where are we now - zero hour contracts, working 40 hours a week for your dole.

Dunno about militant - I generally read Tony Benn's analysis of everything in his diaries. He says we'd gone totally free market by 1976 and Thatcher just carried on with the policies Callaghan and Healy had introduced.

 

[Ismene]

I'm of anarcho-syndicalist leanings myself (have been since I read Orwell at 16 and found out what the hell it meant)

Some line in Homage to catalonia that i always remember when he's talking about looking at an anarchist and liking him instantly just from his face.

 

[Vurtual]

Not so sure vurtual - I think Mao just on his own got through 45 million in 4 years.

Though i still think, however nutty stalin was, the revolution itself was originally largely egalitarian and democratic

I've even gone off Lenin lately - you read some of the secret orders that bald cunt issued and it was "Kill the bastards, as many as we can. Have no mercy".

I didn't like lenin much after reading how he turned on the left communists (sounded so 'nice' before the revolution) (there was a war, but the real problem was marx's 'dictatorship of the proletariat' (shoulda listened to bakunin))

I still think maos 45 million (some say exaggerated), doesn't come close to western imperialism (it did have longer). Mark Curtis's Unpeople tots up deaths due directly/indirectly to the US post war and it's north of 100 million (i trust mark curtis as a historian). Then there's the british empire's bengali famines (~6 million a time), then all the other empires; the imperial war (ww1) and i suppose you could chuck in Britain and Spain's genocides in the americas etc etc. Mao's a pipsqueak really (not to mention a basically a stalinist, and so not a leftist in my world).

And yeah - neoliberalism came to britain under Healy via the IMF - thatcherism had nothing to do with thatcher really, she just fit the bill better (with her love of Hayek). Neoliberalism first started under Pinochet in chile (on september 11th 1973 - is that what the twin towers really celebrates?).

Along with the right-wing media mind control, Labour's collapse in the 80s was due to the SDP splitting - i've read a convincing account saying that this was part of a plan implemented under the influence of the US state department (like operation mockingbird) - (can't remember the article now, i'll have a think)