if you consider my position to be unreasonable or unjustifiable
I think politically we probably agree on much more than we disagree on. I can't say I know enough about your position with regards to political activism, which really involves taking positions on a fairly wide range of issues, to say whether I think these views taken as an aggregate are more reasonable or unreasonable, likewise when it comes to how justifiable they are. Though, I obviously disagree with
some of your positions on these issues quite strongly, as I indicated in my previous post.
I think that much of what we disagree on hinges on our respective views on how pragmatic the kind of activities I mentioned in my last post are when it comes to curtailing pernicious ideology in the absence of a more confrontational or 'hands-on' approach. I suspect you would agree with me on this point, particularly since you seem to have characterised the suggestions in my last post as "theoretic", as opposed to "practical". Perhaps I am misreading your use of terms there. Or, perhaps that is roughly what you meant, but more in the sense that my proposed actions were somewhat vague, rather than them being inherently impractical.
i don't mean in a theoretic sense, but in a practical, personal one. by that i mean - not "what should society do" to keep nazis from gaining political influence, numbers and the boldness and confidence that allows them to believe they can kill with impunity - but "what can politically active members of the community do?".
in other words, i'm not talking about theorising - i'm asking about tactics that could be used by resistance groups and activists.
i'm not talking about suppressing people's freedom of speech, or anything to do with the state or authorities, but politically pragmatic approaches that you would consider justifiable and non-problematic.
The kind of approaches which I am advocating are things like:
- Composing and distributing political literature, these could be news letters, books, brochures or a newspaper. Perhaps even a radio station or a regular segment on an already popular radio station. The focus could be on promoting socially progressive politics, demonstrating why nazi ideology is harmful and wrong, or a mix of the two. This could be done by appealing to political theory, political science, normative ethics, arguments based on collective self-interest, psychology, sociology, or some conjunction of these.
- Distributing existing relevant political literature to the public for free, in the form of books and journal articles on ethics, political theory, sociology, etc.
- Making and/or distributing films/documentaries which expose people to progressive ideas and/or demonstrate the harmfulness and/or fallaciousness of nazi ideology.
- Facilitating discussion groups where people can come and ask questions and discuss progressive politics.
- Attending local community meetings and other events where there is an opportunity to engage with the public.
- Inviting members of racist/nazi/fascist/whatever groups to engage in political debates in a public forum.
- Organising fundraisers, from which the funds could be used to fund the campaigns of progressive individuals and/or parties who are up for election at all levels of government. Some of these funds might also be distributed to members of the community who have been victimised by nazi groups.
- Having individuals run for election in local government, and/or forming a political party which might be elected at higher levels of government, much like 'One Nation' did on the other side of the political spectrum.
- Lobbying the government to provide a more robust education in schools, particularly in areas like normative ethics, political theory and critical thinking. Perhaps more education about the way race can be socially constructed and classes on racial and cultural tolerance, as well.
- Instead of "Doxxing" members of nazi groups, perhaps known members could be approached in a neutral setting and engaged in rational discourse, or sent some engaging and powerful literature which presents compelling arguments against their views.
- Instead of "Doxxing" people so that they might lose their jobs (parenthetically I would like to point out some nazis have young children who, presumably, aren't nazis. Doxxing which costs these individuals their jobs can have a negative effect on these children and other innocent family members of nazis, which is pretty horrible). Money could be donated to various progressive charities in their name, and the 'evidence' could be circulated through the nazi community so that they might be ostracised.
Frankly, I am not sure that I even support this last tactic, but it seems preferable to going after peoples jobs and the like. I would be interested how you would justify the 'collateral damage' (so to speak) which can be caused by the doxxing which you seem to endorse?
I thought up this list fairly quickly, and I am sure it is by no means exhaustive of the possible actions those who oppose nazis and the like could take. I expect "politically active members of the community" could think up many more with ease. For the record, I do not mean to imply these things are not being done, but this is the type of thing I think left-wing activists should be doing. I don't think vigilantism is acceptable or productive. You are clearly much more politically engaged in activism than myself, and perhaps much of this seems impractical to you, but it certainly goes well beyond "theorising".
I think framing the groups who would be responsible for such activities as "resistance groups" seems unnecessarily combative. People have rights to freedom of speech and assembly, and neither of these rights should be resisted, in my view anyway. I view the goals of such efforts to be education and rational engagement with both the public and extremist political groups. I think all polarising rhetoric does is increase the "us versus them" mentality on both extremes of the political spectrum, and this can contribute to the problem. There will always be hardcore nazis and fascists, but I suspect many who belong to these groups are on the fringes of society and have simply found a place where they feel like they belong. Perhaps if they were treated with civility and engaged as intellectual equals through rational argument, as opposed to name-calling and the like, many of these less radical members would more readily see the flaws in their ideology.
You have said these people can't be reasoned with, in a sense I think this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think when this attitude is adopted it shuts down the possibility of people from opposing sides having a conversation and finding some common ground. You know I fucking hate racist ideology, but we do live in a pluralistic society where people are entitled to hold reprehensible opinions. The more both sides can see one another as human beings, the greater the chance for people to learn and moderate their views. There will always be some zealots, but personally, I am confident enough in the validity of progressive liberal ideals to believe that nazis will never become a majority in a society which promotes open and rational political discourse.
I realise that some of the antifa tactics which I have condemned are used by the other side. I believe we should not sink to their level; by doing so it hurts our cause, by refusing to we hurt theirs.
if we're excluding all forms of physical confrontation - presumably including non-violent direct action - how would you go about doing so?
I guess I don't really understand what you mean by non-violent physical confrontation, perhaps you could explain it to me. If what you mean is stuff like attending nazi rallies to "protect" people from being victimised by said nazis, I think such confrontation certainly invites violence. This sort of thing is the role of law enforcement, not the role of politically active members of the community.
