https://twitter.com/Marfacigareta/status/909860893403549697

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fS7bw0DwHo

nigger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--8IBzC4cDs

uuhhhhh dab

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q15qLdQ9bNM

I agree, fuck nazis

woop woop fuck nazis

But need better helmets

US m1 helmets

yeah, but hopefully the antifa movement doesn't need to become protracted to the point of reeeaaaaally needing better / more militarized equipment

Because at that point I'm dun fukd

They need to

Like, a genuine anarchist/socialist/communist movement? Sure. But the American antifa movement isn't anyone's Vanguard, pretty sure

Hopefully they complete their quest and then go do some other praxis

Antifa is a visible entity. If shit got violent, they would need to become underground, but would also be called something else then and keep 'Antifa' for public activity.

^Basically this

But if shit gets violent, and it's real big-top time fascism, then I'm probably already on a train.

There's nothing wrong with exercising your 2nd amendment right

What the fuck...

This is the US antifa we are talking about

Not euro antifa

They probably don't need guns either

Statism can go fuck itself.

Hurr durr

No

>hiding behind a piece of paper

Fuck yourself. You need to learn to defend yourself

Hot take: Any sort of revolutionary protection through collective action will look like a state to someone

Offence is the only form of defence for an Anarchist.

But on US Antifa, I just don't think there's a real need to militarize / bulk up at this point, especially given the fact that it's really unlikely to metastisize into any sort of leftist revolution

Yep, you're right.

>there's no need

>
Nothing wrong with owning a weapon.

The point of the Antifa tactic is to change popular perception of Nazism and restructure the venting of the proletariat's frustration

I think...

I am half saying that to see if anyone agrees lol

I think, on the issue of need, it would cause more problems than solutions at this point?

Woke.

coolcool

Antifa is a visible, public entity.

It's visible, I agree. In the US. But that was just recently. Within the last year. People just need to learn that rioting doesn't work here... stand proud but carry a big stick. That's what works here

Pacifism and posturing tends to be bad revolutionary praxis, in my reading of history, at least.

Tike to shitpost

Time

Here's some free gifs

Leftbook is the dumbest fucking shit

Don't get me wrong. I like the idea of pacifism. Veganism too. But when you really think about it, both are idealism.

I wouldn't support open borders in the context of the current system

I hate the way these anarchists look idk why

Edgy

@olev Why not?

It would lower wages

And there'd probably be a large flood of immigration

Please remind me of you ideology.

Yeah I haven't made up my mind about things but Idk about open borders

Anarcho-collectivist/communist

But there wouldn't be a large amount of immigration

Since they are not fleeing from oppression

Open borders with a People's Glorious Borsch Truck on every corner

Why would there be a large flood of immigration?

If we had open borders today?

Well, why the fuck would you want to live in shit living conditions if you can just freely move to somewhere better?

to seek wealth

This is why collectivists are labour aristocrats.

You want to hoard it for yourself.

On the flip side though, people having higher wages would prolong the capitalist illusion

And that pleases you?

I'm saying that it's the problem

hence why I said on the flip side

Cool.

I hope you understood my critique.

I do understand it

I have not thought about borders much

There's many things I haven't though much about, I'm still learning

Me too.

It's been a while: but on the topic of Pacifism v. Direct Action/rioting: There's not a lot of use of pacifism in history as I've read it to warrant ever calling it a succesful thing to do, or if it ever lead to anything happening on its own. In recent cases you could compare the results of the Occupy Wallstreat movement which was wholly peaceful vs the riots of Ferguson. Occupy lead to nothing going on, and in the long-game sense of it lead to a class of economically frustrated individuals that lead to Bernie and Trump, and when Bernie was booted out of the election then Trump became the momentary standard barrer for people dissatisifed with the economic direction. But in the end: Trump filled his White House with the same Wall Street people that got us into the mess before.

Compared against the Ferguson riots, which put so much in the way of danger that the fastest way to deescalate was to bow to the pressure of force and inact immediate reforms to try and heal the wounds. In a metaphorical sense, Ferguson became an open sore that festered and needed to be treated while Occupy was a simple cut that healed up on its own.

To add to the pattern, even the Detroit riots in the mid-60's lead to immediate reforms in city government as it pertained to housing reform for blacks and bringing in more of the growing non-white population of the city into munincipal government as a gesture to bridge opening divides.

The tactics of the labor movement, either stubbornly at odds with the buisiness owners or even violent like the Haymarket Riot bombing ultimately resulted in the passing of the 8-hour workday, workplace safety standards, minimum wage, and so on.

And no one ever petitioned succesfully to end slavery in the States. If anything the petitioning lead to war which in the course of the war slavery was legally ended.

The thing with violence isn't so much being violent in itself, but the use of violence. Are people unrelated to the cause going to die, even as simple unavoidable consequences of conflict? Or is the threat of violent and force to enforce some sort of change going to be applied as with groups like the Deacons of Defense in the deep south during the Civil Rights movement?

Funny thing that's related

I once joined a socialist server that said advocating for political violence is not allowed

Direct action as praxis these days seems to be something frowned upon. You could see it as a selective look at the work of MLK or even Gahndi. Both ignore some fundamentals in the background, whether it be India's growing tenious position for the British in the aftermath of two World Wars or the support roll the armed vigilantes of the Deacons who helped enforced permanent reforms in the communities MLK and other national leaders got change in.

I don't know if these people are Americans too, but I'll even admit I still hold onto a few small threads that *maybe* the democratic system can be changed from within without bloodshed; that would be the preferred course but unlikely without everything being boiled down to meager pickings to even get it passed mainstream democrats.

Being opposed to the current system, let alone believe in displacing it by force, is frowned upon in general

I'm just going to blame it on a complex series of issues that may or may not include the way history is studied and taught in class and remembered in the popular memory.

Like, we want to remember all was good, even when it was bad, because the future will be good. Never mind the Continental Congress on many occasions dragged the colonial armies through successive periods of starvation and wanting because they were too busy hoarding stuff for the militias of the constituent colonies.

We'd rather think of Valley Forge as just a terrible winter, and not an actually very mild winter with the complicated factor that no one in Philadelphia-left-to-York, Pennsylvania wanted to feed them.

What are you, politically? @AaronMk

@olev In some undescerned location between Socialist, AnCom, or whatever vanilla Communism.

Well socialism is not it's own thing seperate from communism, communism is a type of socialism

It is, but in the popular mind-set it's often pictured as a less extreme variant.