poblacht-na-n-oibrithe:

antifaintl:

Hoo boy Anon, we don’t think you were paying a lot of attention in history class. 
You might want to find someone to sit down and help you understand what we’re about to lay on you:

1) “Militarized communism” or “radical communism” aren’t things.  No one uses those terms because they don’t really describe anything (well, to be fair, the former described the economic & political system in Soviet Russia from 1918-1921, but we’ve a feeling that’s not what you meant) .  We think that maybe you were looking for the term “authoritarian communism.”  The textbook example of authoritarian communism?  Stalin’s regime.

2) Is “authoritarian communism” the “definition of fascism?”  A lot of haters like yourself seem to think they know what the definition of fascism is but do they, really?

One person that might have a better sense of the definition of fascism would be Columbia University history professor Robert O. Paxton, who’s written a book on the subject.  Guess what’s missing from his definition, Anon?  Any mention of communism! 

But wait, there’s more!  Paxton has something to say about authoritarian communism/Stalinism and whether or not it’s fascism:

“No doubt Nazi and communist mechanisms of control had many similarities” but “Stalin’s regime differed profoundly from Hitler’s in social dynamics as well as in aims.  Stalin ruled a civil society that had been radically simplified by the Bolshevik Revolution, and thus he did not have to concern himself with autonomous concentrations of inherited social and economic power.  Hitler (totally unlike Stalin) came into power with the assent and even assistance of traditional elites, and governed in strained but effective association with them.”  “Hitlerism and Stalinism also differed profoundly in their declared ultimate aims - for one, the supremacy of a master race; for the other, universal equality…Focusing upon central authority, the totalitarian paradigm overlooks the murderous frenzy that boiled below in fascism.”

“Treating Hitler and Stalin together as totalitarians often becomes an exercise in in comparative moral judgement: Which monster was more monstrous?…Stalin killed in grossly arbitrary fashion whomever his paranoid mind decided were ‘class enemies’ (a condition one can change), in a way that struck mostly adult males among the dictator’s fellow citizens.  Hitler, by contrast, killed ‘race enemies,’ an irremediable condition that condemns even newborns.  He wanted to  liquidate entire peoples, including their tombstones and cultural artifacts.”  (The Anatomy of Fascism, pp. 212-213). 

So no, Anon, communism - even militant/radicalized/authoritarian communism, isn’t fascism.  

3) Is antifa militant/radicalized/authoritarian communism?  Even if you weren’t wrong about “communism = fascism,” (which, contrary to what you may have gathered from a McBain movie, you are wrong about), are anti-fascists communists?

Certainly most, if not all, communists are anti-fascist.  But that doesn’t mean that all anti-fascists are communists.  Anti-fascism is a big tent compromised of people with all sorts of political perspectives (or none at all), who come together in their mutual opposition to fascism.  But the fact that some anti-fascists are communists doesn’t mean that all anti-fascists (or even the majority) are, even if all communists are anti-fascist.  You’re making what’s known as an association fallacy here.

4) If anti-fascists = fascist; and you’re against anti-fascists, who are fascists;  then that makes you an anti-fascist by definition. Which, in your muddled ouroboros logic, also makes you a fascist!  Which means you are your own worst enemy.  

At last we arrive at the truth of the matter!



 

Argumentation from the right always comes down to smugly saying “Uhhhh why don’t yuo go learn the FACTS” while being hilariously wrong about the facts. Twas ever thus.