Accepting violence as a valid political tool for anything other than an absolute last resort is the exact thing that leads to complete and utter chaos. You have to keep in mind that your side is probably not the only side with guns, and those on the other side are also telling themselves that there are plenty of examples of what happens when you let communists get comfy.
Now, I would obviously say that one of these sides is much more in the wrong, but that doesn’t change the fact that, unless you want a politics of everyone shooting at each other, political violence should essentially always be condemned, even if it’s against your political foes.
That pacifistic stance is based on ideals, but ignores the reality of history and politics. Not everyone shares those ideals, nor are they objectively right. Violence is the only good tool against fascism. Where it fails to stop it, non-violent means would also fail.
I agree, which is why I said violence is a last resort, not something that should be completely sworn off. I don’t think Spain is in imminent risk of a Francoist revival, though I can’t pretend to be an expert of Spanish politics. But if I’m thinking of European nations at grave risk of backsliding into actual fascism, I’m more inclined to think of Hungary rather than Spain.
How exactly do you define fascism though? Seems like that term gets used quite a bit.
Not this awful argument please. Why do liberals always come with the “everything I don’t like is fascism” argument when someone argues against fascism.
