Leftist Street Violence Isn’t New, and It’s Not Going Away

Post Reply New Topic

I don't agree with the framing of this question. Vigilante is too broad of a category. It lumps together people with wildly different goals and praxis. George Washington for example was a vigilante.

I find this level of discourse to be way too truncated and simplistic.

The way you were phrasing your responses I was getting generalities and really what I need to do, if we're going to have a discussion on this, is get specifics out on the table.

Admittedly I'm conceding cards in that I could chose to just ridicule and ignore someone who makes a blanket claim without specifics. Whether it's a strength or a weakness (clearly a weakness if I were to just count internet debate victories) I'm a curious person and I want to know why people see the world completely differently than I do, how they get there, and perhaps whether they can see something I can't - and what they see that I don't may not even be what they purport to espouse as the truth, as in I could find that I disagree with them on every overt point that they're making but I can sort out a logical constellation in what they're saying that points to something important but that important thing is tucked away in an a priori belief that they themselves don't know they're carrying.


Here's my concern - we outsource legitimated violence to the government because we don't believe in the integrity of our capability to call some vigilantes 'good' and others 'bad' or call whose fighting on the right side of a thing because whoever's on one vigilante group's 'side' will let them take a mile and then some. You get these fissures in reality that are irreconcilable and can't be resolved with anything short of all out war. From that perspective I might be curious to hear what your thoughts are on Jonathan Haidt's work on tribalism - whether you've ever heard of him, whether you think he's just a right-wing fetish, whether you think he's right on most things but wrong on key things, etc.. I bring him up because his skepticism of people's ability to make adequate truth claims or even keep their beliefs about truth sorted out and pristine is quite humble and most of his work would suggest that allowing vigilante groups based on whether we felt their 'heart is in the right place' would yield disaster.

The whole point in having it be that the only group of people with legitimate claim to violence is local government (ie. police) and federal government (ie. federal law enforcement) is that seeking change through group violence becomes de-normalized and thus civilians who have contentions with the system need to phrase their concerns in the form of arguments and they need to take those arguments to the local and state government. What this also puts significant weight on - they are responsible for the quality of their arguments. If they're absolutely correct in what they're seeing but make terrible arguments then they themselves have failed their arguments and their arguments deserved better proponents.

I get that people would rebut to the above that the local and state governments have interests that they are protecting, often enough money flowing in from the private sector, and thus if something rocks the boat it can be easily ignored. That's an obstacle and a painful one at that. This is also where well-built social media campaigns are critical. There are so many things that we've changed in the last forty or fifty years non-violently and some of the most recent include much fuller equal rights for LGBT in America. We also seem to be mid-stream in a process toward overturning the Schedule 1 status of cannabis and legalizing it for recreational use across the country.

This is where I don't see 'Yeah but they're right' as a valid justification for public violence from a group. Also at most there's 'Yeah, but they're partially right' - there's a big difference there as well and you can grant that both far left and far right have little scraps of truth that they start with, what they then abstract from those scraps of truth is their own unique BS chimera.

The problem with approving civilian violence or saying 'Group x's violence is okay, group y's isn't' is not only that we're incapable, the violence and the message it sense about civil stability are much more damaging and costly than the discomfort or extra effort needed to make cultural changes by non-violent means.

The state; being a military controlled by a central administrative body, is an institution I can't trust with violence. Outsourcing violence to the government puts society at great risks, because power gets concentrated into fewer hands.

Again, I don't like the word "vigilante". Without making any value judgments, vigilante groups have objective differences.

I remember watching a video you posted while back that featured him.

I can give "The Righteous Mind" a read sometime.

I don't assess these groups solely on the basis of whether their 'heart is in the right place'. I mostly care about their material effects on the world.


Representative democracy allows people to elect government officials who make the decisions for them. The elected officials have no structural obligations to their constituencies, no matter the argument presented.

The LGBT movement in America began with literal riots.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots


I don't think violence is useful in every situation. We can have civil conversations. But to claim violence can never be justified -that's an extreme stance I'm not willing to take.

I don't know if there's anyone you can trust with violence, that's part of the problem.

As far as my listening to both Sam Harris and Bret Weinstein now their main complaint in both cases is mayor Wheeler who won't let the police do their job. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the police a city-level bureaucracy not a state-level one?



The way I'm using it is this - people engaging in violence without requisite permission of the state. I don't think the cause necessarily matters here because it's what it precipitates that's the issue - ie. group A feels slighted by group B, finds justification to attack group B, group B has it's own take on reality and retaliates toward group A. it's what street gangs already do and they are considered criminal organizations.


What positive effects would you equate to the post-2017 incarnation of AntiFa, particularly in places like Portland and Berkeley?


If we take that argument seriously isn't it a bit like saying the system's already gone? Also are you just talking at the federal level or at the federal and local levels?



So I would agree that riots are appropriate when free practice of a fundamental civil right is being prevented. In other cases the justification gets more tenuous.


What bothers me about violence in this case is that there's a clear group A / group B dilemma and that this is one wing antagonizing the other as well as antagonizing the local citizenry.

It's not just Bret and Eric Weinstein along with Sam Harris who are opposed to this, I'm sure you're familiar that Noam Chomsky often addresses AntiFa as a very big gift to the right. I can't remember all of the other names who'd go on this list but suffice to say it's not an unusual position left of center for commentators or even thought leaders to take, ie. that AntiFa does not serve their own purported purpose well and not only does damage to their cause but even excites/energizes the far right.

Yes


https://youtu.be/1JTE0WI5C1Y

Isn't the state is just another group? Group C with it's own take on reality?

I don't want to derail this discussion.

If your intention is to look at things specific AntiFa cells did you believe were bad; this form of argumentation contradicts philosophy you brought into this conversation. You would be casting a value judgments on these groups.

Yes, I believe it was gone from the beginning. I'm not a fan of representative democracy. I don't think it's real democracy.

Both

So considering that we're looking at something like Anarchism as the alternative.


There has to be a qualitative reason for supporting them or their right to cross the line of civility, the 'your right to swing your fists stops where my nose begins' sort of thing. If there isn't then there's just murk, feelings, and no way to discuss anything.


Real democracy is a funny thing. The trope that often gets trotted out is it's two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for lunch, but the bigger problem is something the Greeks even saw - ie. that the masses love a pretty lie, and unfortunately have all kinds of game-theoretical reasons for taking shiny/colorful BS over truth. It's part of how we got Trump, it's part of how we got Obama before him. It gets worse when there are legitimate problems not getting resolved, like automation of jobs, and everyone's fantasies start getting twisted.

Bret Weinstein was talking to someone recently and the question came up as to whether free speech should be curtailed on certain parameters (Bret is against this, Eric is for it), and Bret's consideration is that there's no speech that's unconditionally seductive but at times of economic contraction our internal gearing tilts us toward looking to see who can't defend what they have and finding excuses to take it away from them - and that it's those particular times where such speech is much more dangerous than usual.

Representative democracy has it's drawbacks in that a system can get corrupted and ultimately paralyzed to the point of being ineffectual. OTOH pure democracy doesn't have a lot of buffering to prevent one or two ambitious populists from turning it into a dictatorship of some type.

That said I don't know that there's all that much of a hedge against problems for either representative or pure democracy, seems like the difference is to figure out what priorities are. With representative democracy you have more stability, more potential for investment, and ultimately a longer period of time where a country or a civilization can prosper before it hits decadence and decline.

So I guess there are two fundamental questions that need answering before you even get onto the present political situation:

1) Is it ever acceptable to strike in "anticipatory self defence"?

2) Is the state the only acceptable vehicle for sanctioned violence?

I must admit that these aren't questions I've ever put a great deal of thought into, certainly as an adult. This is very difficult for me because I'm naturally very small-c conservative and hold myself to strict and rigid standards, but I acknowledge that the way I live is not necessary "better" and indeed is often outright dysfunctional.

On 1), we probably first need to define "anticipatory self defence". Let's say every day on the way to school, someone hits you and knocks you out cold. You have reported this to all the relevant authorities but they show no interest in stopping it. If you wait to be struck then you lose the fight. If you try to block then you fail. If you run away then you don't go to school. Your only option is to see them coming and hit first.

Is that "anticipatory self defence" in the same way that "punching a Nazi" is? There are a few key differences. First, the routine nature, and the fact that you've been struck before. Maybe this isn't pre-emptive, this is defence with a time lag. The hostile takeover of states by extremist forces is much less predictable. Perhaps the current situation is a re-run of the 30s, or perhaps it is a re-run of the 80s. Secondly, in my idealised example you're hitting an individual who has personally hit you before. Hitting members of a group when other members have hit you before is generally not seen as acceptable. Political groups are somewhat different to most groups in that a person's politics can tell you something about the content of their character (particularly if they are an extremist) but nonetheless, we might be less comfortable with the morality of punching Strange Nazi X than we would be with punching Bob who keeps punching us.

I think the anti-fascist would respond with some points as follows. First, that punching a Nazi has symbolic value beyond the act itself. Think of Captain America punching Hitler, or the viral video of Richard Spencer being punched. The first arguably made the war more politically acceptable, the second served as a powerful recruiting tool while also holding back the rise of fascism at a time it was particularly buoyant and America was particularly vulnerable. Secondly, they don't just go around punching people they think might be Nazis. They punch people who have gathered to spread Nazi propaganda, to gather, march, chant, and further their cause. And third, Nazism is demonstrably a bad thing, to put it mildly.

In response, one could argue (as I believe the NAACP do) that the symbolism of a "Nazi" being punched is more valuable for the Nazis than the antifascists. The Nazi can use it to paint themselves in a sympathetic light. It helps them make simplistic "gateway" arguments that are more appealling than straight-up Nazi rhetoric. It's well documented that modern Nazis like to start off with arguments about "freedom of speech" before moving onto Islam (the least popular religion) and only then considering Judaism. It's an effective recruitment strategy. There are also documented instances of people being the victims of fascist violence despite not being a fascist: maybe they're only just removed from a fascist, but the disinterested observer just sees the circle getting bigger and figures soon they'll have Lisa Murkowski being beaten on the ground. And while Nazism is definitely a bad thing, on the grand scheme of things it is pretty toothless these days. Even at its worst, it's more comparable with Islamism than with Hitler. Of course it should still be opposed, but most people are, in the weak sense, anti-fascist - there's probably no need for violence given the immense soft and institutional power holding fascists back.

If I would just allow myself one final counter-argument to myself, it's that while we might think fascism is weak here, there are plenty of places where it is strong. In Hungary, Fidesz continue to poll at over 50%, while Jobbik on 7% seem friendly by comparison and there's still room for another fascist party to poll at 3%. In Poland, Austria, and Italy, fascists have serious political presences. In France, the neofascists routinely poll 20-25%. We Anglophones like to think ourselves exceptional, but precious little separates us from continental Europeans and there's really no reason to think we couldn't go the same way. The main thing separating Trump from Mussolini is his bottomless ineptitude, and I'm not sure there's anything Boris Johnson wouldn't do if he thought it would win him votes. We live in perilous times. I can understand why some people would think "I need to act now, and I need to act forcefully".

Onto 2). The state gains legitimacy from the consent of the governed, but it is only measured legitimacy. Sometimes states fail. I'm a liberal - I think we should make states better rather than reject them. But regretfully I have to look at history and see that sometimes, for whatever reason, our countries fail to stand up for justice. If individuals then choose to do so, they take on great responsibility, and they must be humble, and they must accept that they might be wrong, and they must decide that the risk that they are wrong is outweighed by the risk of them being right and not acting.

Some cases where vigilante justice I think clearly proved morally correct were those who went to fight against Franco in the Spanish Civil War, and those who went to fight against ISIS in Syria. In both cases, Anglophone governments abdicated any responsibility and allowed evil a free reign. I can't conclude that the vigilantes acted immorally. If I was on the jury for someone charged with the murder of ISIS fighters on the battlefield then I think I'd have to find them not guilty.

For those who say you are anti-anti-fa: You do know that 'anti-fa' is short for anti-fascist, right?

In math, two negatives cancel each other out.

There are those of us who believe this also applies to politics.

So, anti-anti-fascist has the two antis cancel each other out. You're left with 'fascist'.

I'm not all that thrilled with anarchy, but fascism is definitely not my cup of tea.

Just my two cents.

Except antifa is very fascist.
Fascist isn’t same as Nazi by the way.
Their ideology is fascist, trust me you don’t want a nation ruled by antifa. They’d enact a lot of policies nazis did. Disagree and you get taken away by masked men in the middle of the night never to be seen again.

They picked a name that would evoke positive and make it hard to be against them.
Nazis did the same thing. National socialist party sounds pretty good no? And they just wanted to create jobs, improve the economy, ban guns and other unsafe things for peoples own good.
Mean be honest a lot of people if born back then would have supported the Nazis and it wasn’t until they won elections and rewrote the laws to keep power that they shows their true colors, even then the killing programs were kept secret and propaganda was made to show people the Jews were having a swell time.

Atleast antfia shows their true colors.

I wonder if hitler could rose to power In a two party system or if he’d Been like the Green Party running every year but never winning.

There were two mainstream parties in Germany circa 1930. Hitler rose to power, at first, because one of the parties needed the Nazis to complete a coalition government.

You do have it factored in that human beings can lie, ie. call themselves one thing and perform something completely different or something worse than what they claim to be fighting, right?

This is the way I see this one:

-I would rather have 2 wolfs eat 1 sheep, than have 2 wolves eating 20.



True,

But when human beings are granted with more power over others, those people become even worse.

I'd add - this demoralizes the centrists, who get the impression that the 'adults' have left the room. Sometimes that demoralization aids in hollowing out the center, and that's the last thing we want right now.



It's useful to consider as well that Easten Europe has a very different culture, living memory of Communism, etc., so the mentality is quite different over there and especially so when considering the demands Merkel was placing on all European countries to take on x hundred thousand or x million migrants from Syria, Africa, etc.. That situation was much more intense, much more politically upsetting, much more likely to accelerate differences in politics than what we have at our own Southern border in the US and perhaps add to that, we're one nation of 325 million plus so our likelihood of existential threat from immigration is much, much lower whereas it's still excitable in countries of only several million.


The thing that's interesting is you can parameterize those states or countries where such uprisings are deemed appropriate and they're nothing like western democracies with respect to their systems. If a hot civil war erupts in a country that's another situation where the norms for non-violent issue resolution are already out the window.

Optimally I'd choose eight apes eating eight apples or Peter Piper picking a patch of pickled peppers.


Are you advocating government without police and if so what kind of government? What do it's 'laws' look like and how are they enforced?

Probably closer to the truth than intellectual reasons.

People can feel more valuable in a group.