Football Lads and Lasses against Facism

urban genie said:
https://m-huffingtonpost-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/anti-fascist-football-group-fight-far-right_uk_5b7fc484e4b0cd327dfb9033/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQECAFYAQ==#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/anti-fascist-football-group-fight-far-right_uk_5b7fc484e4b0cd327dfb9033


Interview with the fan that came up with it

Decide what you will but is hardly far left
Click to expand...

There's a deliberate attempt, by the usual suspects, at whataboutery and deflection in this thread.

This is telling from your linked article....

“First and foremost we would like to win some of that periphery towards progressive politics and try to highlight the stupidity that they are involved in and try to highlight the need for solidarity rather than pour scorn on communities.”

The "moderate" right wing malcontents in here don't want to talk about this stuff, the real root causes behind the rise of the likes of Tommy Robinson, because they know when that happens all roads lead to their "moderate" shitty little politics.

That's why they're muddying the waters and playing their pathetic mind games.

 
The perfect fumble said:
There's a deliberate attempt, by the usual suspects, at whataboutery and deflection in this thread
Click to expand...

No mate there is a deliberate attempt by the usual suspects to accept that there is no difference politics aside between these lot......

iu


and this lot...

iu
 
The perfect fumble said:
The "moderate" right wing malcontents in here don't want to talk about this stuff, the real root causes behind the rise of the likes of Tommy Robinson, because they know when that happens all roads lead to their "moderate" shitty little politics
Click to expand...

I'd love to know what you think is behind the rise of Tommy Robinson and right wing populism, genuinely.
 
Damocles said:
I'd love to know what you think is behind the rise of Tommy Robinson and right wing populism, genuinely.
Click to expand...

Quite simple - problems with immigration. Importing cultures at odds with ours. Well publicised issues with rape gangs. Terror attacks for not believing in Allah. Young girls blown to bits at a pop concert.

Towns and cities changed without consultation of people who have lived there for generations.

And anyone who dares question the speed or rational behind radical change imposed on our country is labelled far right?

It’s an absolute disgrace.
 
Ban-jani said:
As long as they’re not violent, then yes, any political position is acceptable unless it’s suggesting violence or persecution.

Who are you to say they’re not acceptable?
Click to expand...


I am a member of a democratic society, free to comment on politics and political movements and ideologies.
If i find a political party or idea unacceptable, i'll say so, and i find political extremism highly unacceptable and abhorrent, be it from the Communists or the Nazi's.

I never said they should not exist.

As Voltaire one said: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
 
Armchair Supporter said:
I am a member of a democratic society, free to comment on politics and political movements and ideologies.
If i find a political party or idea unacceptable, i'll say so, and i find political extremism highly unacceptable and abhorrent, be it from the Communists or the Nazi's.

I never said they should not exist.

As Voltaire one said: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Click to expand...


What about the anarcho-syndicalists? They seem nice I heard once only drink herbal teas
 
  • Like
Reactions: mat
Damocles said:
I'd love to know what you think is behind the rise of Tommy Robinson and right wing populism, genuinely.
Click to expand...

I believe this.....

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...sm-immigration-financial-crisis-globalisation

So what is really going on? National populism is revolving around four deep-rooted societal shifts: the “four Ds”. First, there are high levels of political distrust, which are being exacerbated by populist leaders who paint themselves and their followers as victims of a political system that has become less representative of key groups. Second, many people have strong and entrenched fears about the perceived destruction of national cultures, ways of life and values, amid unprecedented and rapid rates of immigration and ethnic change. Accompanying this distrust and fear are anxieties related to deprivation and the loss of jobs and income, along with a strong sense that they and their ethnic and social group are being left behind relative to others in society.

Finally, many political systems in the west are having to grapple with a new era of dealignment, in which bonds between voters and traditional parties are breaking down, and hence the path for new political challengers is much more open.

When you take a closer look at these four currents it becomes abundantly clear that there is nothing ephemeral about national populism, and we will be living in an era of heightened volatility for many years to come.
 
Last edited:
The perfect fumble said:
I believe this.....

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...sm-immigration-financial-crisis-globalisation

So what is really going on? National populism is revolving around four deep-rooted societal shifts: the “four Ds”. First, there are high levels of political distrust, which are being exacerbated by populist leaders who paint themselves and their followers as victims of a political system that has become less representative of key groups. Second, many people have strong and entrenched fears about the perceived destruction of national cultures, ways of life and values, amid unprecedented and rapid rates of immigration and ethnic change. Accompanying this distrust and fear are anxieties related to deprivation and the loss of jobs and income, along with a strong sense that they and their ethnic and social group are being left behind relative to others in society.

Finally, many political systems in the west are having to grapple with a new era of dealignment, in which bonds between voters and traditional parties are breaking down, and hence the path for new political challengers is much more open.

When you take a closer look at these four currents it becomes abundantly clear that there is nothing ephemeral about national populism, and we will be living in an era of heightened volatility for many years to come.
Click to expand...

That is almost the perfect answer. That's pretty much exactly what I believe too, though I'd give greater weight to some of the four than others.

I'm lucky (or unlucky depending on your viewpoints) enough to have friends who are politically engaged across the political spectrum from the far left to the far right and this resonates deeply with what they are telling me their positions are based upon.

This is a key reason why I'm against identity politics in any format - highlighting differences and especially managing outcomes between these different groups can only lead to less social cohesion rather than more. Egalitarianism has to be at the forefront of all democratic activity or democracy itself falls down under threat. You can't have certain rules for certain groups and other rules for others for a variety of really very good reasons.
 
Damocles said:
That is almost the perfect answer. That's pretty much exactly what I believe too, though I'd give greater weight to some of the four than others.

I'm lucky (or unlucky depending on your viewpoints) enough to have friends who are politically engaged across the political spectrum from the far left to the far right and this resonates deeply with what they are telling me their positions are based upon.

This is a key reason why I'm against identity politics in any format - highlighting differences and especially managing outcomes between these different groups can only lead to less social cohesion rather than more. Egalitarianism has to be at the forefront of all democratic activity or democracy itself falls down under threat. You can't have certain rules for certain groups and other rules for others for a variety of really very good reasons.
Click to expand...

Identity politics almost always connects with interest politics.
 
Armchair Supporter said:
I am a member of a democratic society, free to comment on politics and political movements and ideologies.
If i find a political party or idea unacceptable, i'll say so, and i find political extremism highly unacceptable and abhorrent, be it from the Communists or the Nazi's.

I never said they should not exist.

As Voltaire one said: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Click to expand...

By you saying “are they acceptable?” it, from my point of view, made me think you were for allowing them.

I’m glad you don’t actually feel that way.

Communism isn’t “abhorrent” in anyway near the same way Nazism is.
 
blueinsa said:
100 Million dead over 100 years says to me it’s abhorrent.

No point comparing murderous regimes to try and make a point one isn’t as bad as another.

They are all fucking evil.
Click to expand...

The point of Communism isn’t to commit the murder, the essence of Nazism was to ethnically cleanse.

Communism doesn’t work, I agree, however the point of it is that everyone is equal.
 
Ban-jani said:
The point of Communism isn’t to commit the murder, the essence of Nazism was to ethnically cleanse.

Communism doesn’t work, I agree, however the point of it is that everyone is equal.
Click to expand...

"there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror." - Karl Marx

"the Austrian Germans and Magyars will be set free and wreak a bloody revenge on the Slav barbarians. The general war which will then break out will smash this Slav Sonderbund and wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names.
The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward" Friedrich Engels



Don't give me that. Marx, Engels et al explicitly talked about mass slaughter in their works and thoroughly approved of it.
 
Henkeman said:
"there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror." - Karl Marx

"the Austrian Germans and Magyars will be set free and wreak a bloody revenge on the Slav barbarians. The general war which will then break out will smash this Slav Sonderbund and wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names.
The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward" Friedrich Engels



Don't give me that. Marx, Engels et al explicitly talked about mass slaughter in their works and thoroughly approved of it.
Click to expand...

You make a good point, however the argument is on whether it’s as immoral to be a Communist or a Nazi.

You’re certainly right in that to achieve Communism in the 19th and early 20th century you would have needed to revolutionise and murder, something they were very willing to do and Communist leaders and figureheads throughout history have seen little importance of human life.

However my point is that being a Communist and following the principles does not necessarily mean murder and it certainly isn’t as abhorrent as being a supporter of Nazism.

You can be a fully fledged Communist and not support murder, you cannot if you’re the Nazis biggest fans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top