How serious are you guys when you talk about punching nazis?
How serious are you guys when you talk about punching nazis?
I have been seeing plenty of guillhotine and mollotov jokes here, and as the title says, punching nazis.
I've been reading a book about nonviolence and anarchism, and he basically shows how we shouldn't use violence, even in extreme cases (like neo nazis).
The main argument is that the means dictates the ends, so if we want a non violent (and non opressing) society, punching people won't help.
And if it is just a joke, you should probably know that some people have been jailed for decades because of jokes like these (see: avoiding the fbi, second chapter of the book above).
Obviously im up for debate, or else I wouldn't make this post. And yes, I do stand for nonviolence.
(english is not my first language, im sorry if I made errors, or wansn't clear.)
(if this is not pertinent, I can remake this post in c/politics or something)
(the book is The Anarchist Cookbook by Keith McHenry, if you are downloading from the internet, make sure you download it from the correct author, there is another book with the same name.)
You're viewing a single thread.
I'm just gonna focus entirely on the common misunderstanding of the use of violence against Nazis in WWII because that's such a common argument for punching nazis and it's really quite wrong on so many levels.
"But Nazis were stopped by violence in WWII." That's a meaningless statement without the missing last word. Violence stopped Nazis militarily, after they had already seized power in Germany and were invading other countries. Today we're not in a military battle with Nazis, we're in an ideological battle.
So why did the Nazis seize power in Germany? Because they weren't punched enough? Well the exact mechanism behind how the nazis seized power is a complex web of illegal political maneuvers, political violence, and yes, some degree of ideological success by the nazis. But a key part of that ideological success was the fear of political violence by their opponents - most notably the Reichstag fire - to justify the power that they were illegally taking. It was basically "desperate times require desperate measures". So in the ideological battle, the perceived* use of violence by Nazi opponents was actually a key part of their victory within Germany.
Meanwhile, over in the US, the contrast between the violence employed by the German American Bund (the US version of the Nazi party) and largely Jewish peaceful protesters ended up being a massive embarrassment to the Bund from which they never recovered. Again, ideologically, non-violence proved quite effective.
Point being, and this should be obvious - violence is a really bad option for succeeding in an ideological battle. Yes, in a military battle, it's the only rational option. But in an ideological battle, it's actually counterproductive.
*Obligatory caveat that whether the Reichstag fire was actually set by nazi opponents remains debated, but suffice to say the political atmosphere at the time made it plausible.
Maybe if we just don't fight the Nazis, they won't be able to justify violence against us 🤡
Yeah let's just allow roving gangs of brownshirts to run around attacking and terrorizing minorities because if we don't they might stage an attack and the "atmosphere of violence" we've created by trying to keep people safe will allow them to blame it on us and seize power. The solution is to just allow them to seize power directly through force, without resistance.
This is nonsense. Nazis don't need a justification to use force against you, they can literally just lie and make shit up, like they did with the Reichstag Fire. It doesn't matter if it's true because it's directed at the weakest and most vulnerable and stigmatized populations, who have the least capacity to fight back and the fewest platforms to counter their narratives, and once they're done with them they work their way up. They will create terror on the streets and then use the fact that the streets are full of terror to seize power. People are going to try to defend themselves when attacked whether you think they should or not, so the only question is whether that resistance is strong enough to actually work.
Of course if someone uses violence, you can use violence back. You’re arguing against a strawman.
Yeah let's just allow roving gangs of brownshirts to run around attacking and terrorizing minorities
There are mechanisms to stop, apprehend, and punish those who attack and terrorize communities already, without regard to ideology, and without violating the state’s monopoly on civil violence. There’s even recourse when those mechanisms don’t get a fair result.
Yeah, and those same mechanisms existed in the Jim Crow South but that didn't stop the Klan from lynching people and getting away with it.
Yeah let’s just allow roving gangs of brownshirts to run around attacking and terrorizing minorities
Well that's blatantly not the argument at all. The question isn't whether to react, but what do you do about it?
The vast majority of fascist movements are destroyed through nonviolence rather than violence, which itself is typically inseparable from fascism. To refer to the post below, what ended Jim Crow? Was it a bunch of black people going around punching suspected Klan members? On the contrary it was the reverse. The Klan "lynching people and getting away with it" included key rallying points like the murders of Emmett Till, or the Mississippi Burning murders, along with state violence like the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Sure, maybe the fascists themselves got away with it, but fascism didn't. The things the Klan and other segregationists fought for were dismantled, in large part thanks to their own violent efforts.
Nazis don't need a justification for their violence, but their enablers - Von Papen, or the would-be modern equivalent Mike Pence - do. And these enablers need to tell themselves, their family, and their neighbors, that they have good reasons for their decisions. Exposing fascism as the senseless violence it is robs them of that justification, while giving the fascists a threat to refer to provides it.
I only brought up Jim Crow in response to the claim that the the state will protect people and that there are ways to appeal the state of it doesn't. The point being that having legal protections on paper is not always enough to keep people safe.
The "fascist enablers" don't have consciences you can appeal to, because what drives them is money, and they are specifically selected for their willingness to serve capital and cause harm to innocent people. The system selects for sociopaths.
You analysis takes absolutely zero account of the systems or material conditions that exist which compel people to act in certain ways. Germany had an unemployment rate of 30% in 1932, but in your mind, it seems like the communists were only fighting because they wanted to and the capitalists were just reacting to that.
Had everyone on the left coordinated on mass nonviolent actions, like mass strikes for example, the capitalists would still have turned to the fascists in order to preserve their money and power. Violence or nonviolence doesn't matter, what matters is whether their positions are threatened. You either never do anything to gain power in hopes of being able to beg your enemies for mercy, or you do whatever it takes to win so you don't have to rely on that. The in between stuff where you pull your punches and try to disrupt things without defending yourself is the surest way to get yourself killed.
An under-appreciated fact about fascists is their karen-adjacent sense of entitlement and victimhood. Which will be amplified if they become the target of violence.