Many issues with this headline, but one of them is the word journalist, which implies some form of neutrality. The headline should either be a L out a journalist that writes about antifa, or a pro-facism activist. I suspect from the context (Fox) that it’s the latter.
journalist, which implies some form of neutrality
Oh, my sweet summer child
if they’re not neutral, they’re not journalists. A fascist journalist is just a fascist after all.
In an ideal world you’d be right
In reality that’s not actually a requirement to be one
The vast majority of journalists work for some sort of publication or news agency, in which they’re beholden to the company owners’ agenda and have to report to an editorial board, which decides what can and can not be published in accordance with their views.
You’re thinking of independent journalists, of which there are very few.
It’s crazy how many people just on this meme think antifa is an actual organization. 🤦
How else they are paying their demonstrators money for each demonstration?
No it’s not. It has no members. It had no leaders. It’s just an idea. What do you think an organization is?
A movement can have members and leaders even without formal organizational hierarchy. It just won’t look the same as something like a corporation, nonprofit, or government. The person who noticed that the Proud Boys were coming to town and rallied people to a counter-protest? Definitely a leader. The people who show up on a cold rainy Saturday instead of staying indoors with a warm cup of tea? Members. Just because membership and leadership is more amorphous doesn’t mean it isn’t there in some form.
People are just nitpicking the meaning of the word Organization. Antifa is an organization in a very loose definition of the word. If you want to be more accurate, you’d call it a Network. Organizations (in the stricter sense) has a single leader and has a very tree-like structure with more power on top (like Corporations!), which Antifa obviously is not.
Though you’re correct in that Antifa is a “movement”.
In my opinion it would be a movement if facism was the status quo. Given most people are discussing Western nations, which while adopting facism at an alarming pace; are not yet facist. Antifa is not a movement nor an organization. Since not being facist is the status quo and antifa means that you’re not going to support facism, in my opinion antifa is the current “establishment” and being facist is an effort to move the status quo. Aka a movement.
I find this comment thread horribly ironic, and I hope I can show you why without starting an argument because this is genuinely kind of funny.
Fascism is when a state achieves (or attempts to achieve) totalitarianism through corporatization. All corporations are chartered and controlled through the state, and private industry becomes corporatized.
One of the ways they did this was through legitimizing specific channels of distribution, and labeling all who take a more independent route as illegitimate. Farmers, for example, were coerced into selling their products to state distributors, and pressured out of independent channels. Likewise, farmers who weren’t part of the state organization were often treated with suspicion and derision.
Basically, if you were a _____ and did _____ things, but were not part of the _____ organization, then you weren’t a real ______ no matter how good you are at _____.
Anyway, antifa is a real thing that exists, and that’s the thing people here are talking about. They’re a group that has identifiable goals, and they work together under the label. It’s really funny to me that so many here are appealing to “they’re not even a real org” in the face of dissent, because that’s one of the most fascist mind sets that exist commonplace today.
There is a huge overlap between people who would participate in Antifa and Anarchists, so you can imagine the problems getting a structured organization setup and keeping on task and purpose.
I’m sure that’s part of it. Antifa is definitely not well structured, and anarchists could probably be opposed to any official organization.
Let me put it this way, the post talks about a journalist who investigates antifa, which the op of this comment chain mocked because they’re not an organization. But, this is an argument of semantics, and the post didn’t use that word to begin with. Regardless of what you call antifa, he’s trying to investigate and see what they’re about.
It’s a very dishonest way to deride people. If you don’t mind me asking, if you don’t think the word organization is appropriate, what’s better? I mean I just say group, can’t really be wrong going that general but it also doesn’t say much. Like, when you said “people who participate in Antifa…”, what type of thing are those people participating in?
Organizations do not necessarily require structure, association is a synonym for a reason. Decentralized organizations and associations are a thing. Decentralized workers solidarity movements and co-op/community strengthening initiatives can be/are “organizing” even if no one is in charge. You don’t need to be a member of a union or an official neighborhood association to be part of an organization, there just needs to be general or vague common intention among a group and something of a shared identity. You might not get as much done a fast when not structurally organized, but you also don’t not exist if your not a card carrying member. I don’t understand the desire to divorce Antifa from being an organization or even existing. It’s like saying that the Deadheads aren’t a real thing because no one was directing the vast majority of fans who packed up and followed the band across the country.
I seem to recall seeing a video or reading an article where they mention that the media turned antifa into a sort of separate word to warp its meaning. Instead of saying anti fascist, which has a clear meaning, they shortened it and changed the pronunciation ‘an teefa’ (something to do with which syllable you emphasise) so they could distort its meani g and demonise the word to make people think it was bad.
So now people dont realise antifa means anti fascist which is surely a good thing to be, and instead, they fear antifa as some kind of terrorist group, which is almost the opposite of what it is.
The funny thing is, as an outsider to this, living in the UK, our media doesn’t ever use the term, and when i heard it, my instinct was to look up its meaning. It’s interesting to me that i won’t know if i would have fallen for it if the media were using it in the same way over here to lead my understanding of its definition
I think Antifa actually started in the UK even before the Nazi’s. Eh actually not but they did fight against fascists in the UK as early as 1930.
The reason why we need antifa and why it’s hated by the mainstream is because the establishment is notoriously bad at stopping fascism. There is a long history of it. So besides liberal antifa that uses legal means like suing the KKK out of existence, the autonomous antifa is actually needed for the continued working of our democracy.
Antifa (Antifaschistische Aktion) under that name started in 1932 as action by the KPD to organise widest possible front against the nazis, in the face of SPD as a party being very reluctant to act against nazis. Many SPD members did joined, but as we know, their own party in reichstag made that futile.
Of course antifascist resistance is about as old as fascism or even older considering protofascists activity even before Mussolini coined the term, but the name itself is from 1932 KPD.
Afaik, the first Antifa were a coalition of left wing groups in Italy fighting fascists in the 1920s. They didn’t necessarily use the term but they were the first active anti-fascists so that counts in my book 🤷
As a side note, they were left to fight both the fascists and the royalists alone, since the Italian Liberals refused to get involved until it was clear who would win and then joined the fascists.
I think that is the lesson, liberals do not effectively fight against fascism because they are too desiring of orderly and calm and polite politics and too much powered by economic interests (bourgeois). So we actually rely on antifa as a social force. Neither the state nor the liberals will fight against it. At least that is my limited understanding of it, since this is never discussed about in mainstream media.
Yeah that’s bullshit. There isn’t some secret cabal that’s in charge of US journalism anymore than there is in the UK. What really happens is that because the old news-media business models have been utterly destroyed by the Internet, there’s a giant and never-ending competition for audience and everyone knows that sensationalism sells.
You have a similar problem in the UK but it’s not as pronounced because the BBC is government funded and even though it’s far from perfect, it does set a kind of baseline. Your other big news organizations are just as bad as in the US though. Your tabloids are actually a lot worse than ours, which is saying something.
It was donald trump himself that started it
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52868295
And you know how.his followers hang on his every word. I mean, he literally incited a riot/assault on capitol.
I see your point, but i dont see how the old news being taken over by internet news changes who is in control of the narrative. I also dont think i was referring to any kind of “secret cabal.”
I was only saying that i heard or read somewhere that antifa was demonised in the media, and thats why so many think they are terrorists. If you ask most americans what antifa means, they don’t know. They only know the abbreviation ‘antifa’ and that they are scared of it.
