zlacker

Using violence to achieve political goals is not in itself a "hallmark of fascism". From the Gordon Riots, to union riots, to militant suffragettes, history is littered with examples of political change that was expedited by violence.

In the UK, the British Union of Fascists organised a march in London in 1936 and were countered by ten times as many people organised by anarchist, communist, socialist and Jewish groups. The ensuing violence sent an extremely clear message that fascism is not welcome in the country.

>>n4r9+(OP)
My post:

>> Antifa literally exist to use violence upon people who don't share their politics

Your reply:

> Using violence to achieve political goals is not in itself a "hallmark of fascism".

Agreed. But I didn't write that it was.

You live in the UK. How would you compare the IRA of the 1920s with the provos in the 1980s? Would you say they're the same group? They have the same name.

>>nailer+U
I'm a bit confused about your argument, then. Antifa aren't violent against just anyone that doesn't share their politics. It's not a single organisation with a uniform political ideology, so that wouldn't make sense. It's more like the practise of aggressive confrontation specifically against authoritarian, right-wing movements, especially those which have some level of support from the state and/or police.

>>n4r9+2j
> Antifa aren't violent against just anyone that doesn't share their politics.

In my experience (as a mainsteam left person) Antifa consider anyone not on the hard left to be either 'fascists' or 'bootlickers'. Everyone else I know who has had any contact with Antifa has had the same experience. Many Antifa people would say this is an accurate view of anyone who does not share hard left political views.

>>nailer+TU
They don't tend to protest engage in violence against soft-left events like democrat rallies, unless I'm mistaken? The vast majority of the time it's against alt-right or white supremacist events.