The History of Antifa vs. Nazi: The Light and Dark sides of the Force

[Blarghagh]

 

Last time I was there I saw a lot of celtic crosses and bald teens wearing shirts with slogans like 'kill for the fatherland'. Between that and PIS being in charge, asking what they'll do when fascism comes to Poland seems to be behind the times.

Except we use the term motherland and wear christian crosses. So maybe you confused with Germany.

And implying fascist to the country that suffered the most from nazi Germany is bizzare at best.

Right, and Red is Bad isn't one of Polands most mainstream brands. Neo-fascism and racism has been normalized among Polish youth subculture for a while now, and there are literal far-right extremists in parliament.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

Last time I was there I saw a lot of celtic crosses and bald teens wearing shirts with slogans like 'kill for the fatherland'. Between that and PIS being in charge, asking what they'll do when fascism comes to Poland seems to be behind the times.

Except we use the term motherland and wear christian crosses. So maybe you confused with Germany.

And implying fascist to the country that suffered the most from nazi Germany is bizzare at best.

 

Right, and Red is Bad isn't one of Polands most mainstream brands. Neo-fascism and racism has been normalized among Polish youth subculture for a while now, and there are literal far-right extremists in parliament.

 

I was going to make a joke about how unfair it was to call every person who parades around in symbols used by white nationalists a nazi, then I searched for Red is Bad and god damn that is a lot of LARP.

[Rosbjerg]

I see another Rosbjerg xenophobe clone here. Name one far-right extremist in Polish parliament.

[...]

 

Learn some history:

 

 

I see you've certainly learned from history - false narrative is a very effective propaganda tool.

[Ben No.3]

 

No right extremists in polish politics?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janusz_Korwin-Mikke

 

"Other provocative statements include his claim that there is no written proof that Adolf Hitler was aware of the Holocaust.[23] He also stated that the difference between rape and consensual sex is very subtle. He further claimed that: "there is a hypothesis that the attitudes of men are passed to women by way of the **** which penetrates the tissue... now when contraceptives are much more in use, the women become much more independent".[11] [...] In regard to welfare, he believes that "if someone gives money to an unemployed person, he should have his hand cut off because he is destroying the morale of the people".[11]"

 

 

No fascists here

Edited September 16, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Yokoshima]

Antifa vs. Nazi has a long history that goes way back.  The two have always co-existed as the opposing forces:

 

 

Antifaschistische Aktion (German: [ˌantifaˈʃɪstɪʃə akˈtsi̯oːn]), abbreviated as Antifa (German: [ˈantifaː]), is a militant anti-fascist network in Germany.

 

The first German movement to call itself Antifaschistische Aktion was proclaimed by the German Communist Party (KPD) in their newspaper Rote Fahne in 1932 and held its first rally in Berlin on 10 July 1932, then capital of the Weimar Republic...

 

The late 1920s and early 1930s saw rising tensions between Nazis and leftists. Berlin in particular was the site of regular and often very violent clashes between the two groups. There were several Nazi and anti-Nazi paramilitary groups.

 

Antifaschistische Aktion was formed as a broad-based alliance in which Social Democrats, Communists and others could fight legal repression and engage in self-defence against Nazi paramilitaries.

 

After the forced dissolution in the wake of the Machtergreifung [Adolf Hitler's rise to power] in 1933, Antifa was banned and went underground.

 

The reemergence of Antifa in 1980s:

 

Many new Antifa groups formed from the late 1980s onwards. One of the biggest antifascist campaigns in Germany in recent years was the, ultimately successful, effort to block the annual Nazi-rallies in the east German city of Dresden in Saxony, which had grown into "Europe's biggest gathering of Nazis".

 

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifaschistische_Aktion

 

Given the history that the communist Soviet Union was our ally in World War II, and fought on our side together in the Allied Forces against Nazi Germany, I would say Nazi and its successor neo-Nazi, - whose ideology is White nationalism and White supremacy, was and still is the bigger threat than Antifa.

 

So, Antifa and Nazi have always been archenemies. Antifa and Nazi exist like the two opposing sides of the Force, Light and Dark. When the Dark Side (i.e., Nazi) rises again, the Light Side (Antifa) also reemerges to fight. And Antifa has always used violence to fight against Nazi, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with Antifa's use of violence in fighting Nazi.

 

So, Antifa has reemerged only because the other side, the Dark Side, the true evil, has returned and become stronger.

This is insane. The "neo-nazis" are few and hold almost not political power. But places like CNN shilled for the authoritarian left Ati-fa (who, btw, represent an ideology far worse than the Nazis based on number killed). Many are anarco-commuinists. We didn't fight with them at all, and we have ALWAYS stood against authoritarian ideologies.  Don't paint them for what they aren't. There is a reason they have been classified as a terrorist organization since 2016 internally.

[Yokoshima]

It's almost like the left are the only ones willing to fight the nazis before they take power. Who would have thunk?

It took me until now to realize that "Antifa" is actually "AFA", wich is the term I'm more used to. Knew alot of AFA people growing up since my hometown had a high concentration of neonazis.

Yeah it tends to pop up where there's a lot of nazis.

 

Show me where there are a lot of nazis. Show me where they hold meaningful social or political power. Even if you assume 100% of the people at charlottesville were Nazis or white supremacists (they weren't) it was a massive country wide effort just to get that many. And you know what? Before Antifa showed up there was no violence. THEY didn't break any laws or act like children. So let them spout their idiocy. The MSM, the President, hell pretty much EVERYONE condemns them. Even most of the people on any of the /pol/s think they are idiots (LARPing aside). The ones who break the law and riot are the ones we should care about.

[Yokoshima]

Atifa violence was directly responsible for Hitlers and other fascist parties in Europe rose to power as people wanted order in their countries and that was the platform they run on in Germany and Italy for example.

The legend of antifa fighting "against nazies" was forged after WWII to make them look good in retrospective.

Antifa didn't fought fascist because they seen them as evil, they fought them because they were political rivals for rhe same leftist voters. Fascist for national socialism and Antifa for international socialism.

Fascist won battle in Germany and millions of people died from their ideology, antifa won in Russia and millions died from their ideology.

Using the ligh/dark side is false as it implies antifa thugs are "good". In fact they are equivalent of D&D Blood Wars between Lawful Evil Devils (Nazies) and Chaotic Evil Demons (Antifa).

Both are evil and noone should side with either one.

This. A 1000 times this.

[Yokoshima]

The anti fascist movement, was directly responsible for the fascist movement.

 

That's some great doublethink right there.

When one side uses authoritarian and violent means against another, the vast majority of the population who was on neither side will have empathy for the side that was wronged. Especially if they side attacking was successful. Take the modern political climate. Right now "SJW"s and anti-fa are using violence to attack literal fact, peaceful protest, and in many ways white people (esp. white males). You don't have to be a Nazi to find that distasteful. But the extreme left has the majority of social power (Basically modern day McCarthyism) and a great deal of the political power. 

 

As a result some see the far right as their only hope, while most moderates and liberals see the far left as the enemy and major threat but still do not like the fat right. Either way the far right benefits.

 

So yes, one authoritarian side in power can lead to the opposite authoritarian side gaining power. It is known as the pendulum effect. Those who do not observe history and all that.

[Ben No.3]

 

"Other provocative statements include his claim that there is no written proof that Adolf Hitler was aware of the Holocaust.[23] He also stated that the difference between rape and consensual sex is very subtle. He further claimed that: "there is a hypothesis that the attitudes of men are passed to women by way of the **** which penetrates the tissue... now when contraceptives are much more in use, the women become much more independent".[11] [...] In regard to welfare, he believes that "if someone gives money to an unemployed person, he should have his hand cut off because he is destroying the morale of the people".[11]"

 

 

No fascists here

Agree. No fascist here.

1. Being provocative is not equal to fascist.

2. Is there a written proof? If yes the it's not a factual statement, if no then how is this provocative?

3. He's personal opinions of women are his own. They may be strange or opposite of yours. Doesn't make him a fascist.

4. He oppose welfare, most right wingers do, so?

 

If those statements are fascist than what Merkel and Juncker are saying about POland makes them AH reincarnations.

 

Let me ask you, by your definition is there a possibility to be conservative or right wing without you calling people fascists?

Not apoligising for Hitler would be a start

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

"Other provocative statements include his claim that there is no written proof that Adolf Hitler was aware of the Holocaust.[23] He also stated that the difference between rape and consensual sex is very subtle. He further claimed that: "there is a hypothesis that the attitudes of men are passed to women by way of the **** which penetrates the tissue... now when contraceptives are much more in use, the women become much more independent".[11] [...] In regard to welfare, he believes that "if someone gives money to an unemployed person, he should have his hand cut off because he is destroying the morale of the people".[11]"

 

 

No fascists here

Agree. No fascist here.

1. Being provocative is not equal to fascist.

2. Is there a written proof? If yes the it's not a factual statement, if no then how is this provocative?

3. He's personal opinions of women are his own. They may be strange or opposite of yours. Doesn't make him a fascist.

4. He oppose welfare, most right wingers do, so?

 

If those statements are fascist than what Merkel and Juncker are saying about POland makes them AH reincarnations.

 

Let me ask you, by your definition is there a possibility to be conservative or right wing without you calling people fascists?

Not apoligising for Hitler would be a start

The only country that should appologize for AH is Germany, agree.

The existence of written proof is only interesting for historians and people interested in history which JKM is.

Regardless of such documents existing AH was responsible whether he was fully aware or not of the scope of atrocious things Germans did in WWII.

This guy isn't a historian, he is a politician. If he implies Hitler did not know about the Holocaust, he is defending Hitler and thereby the entire Nazi ideology. And this should be glaringly obvious. If you ask why "right wing" or "nationalist" is so quickly associated with "fascist", look at what you are defending here.

 

Imagine I would be saying, not implying but directly saying, that there is no proof that Stalin ever knew about the Gulags or the Holodomor.

Edited September 16, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

 

 

"Other provocative statements include his claim that there is no written proof that Adolf Hitler was aware of the Holocaust.[23] He also stated that the difference between rape and consensual sex is very subtle. He further claimed that: "there is a hypothesis that the attitudes of men are passed to women by way of the **** which penetrates the tissue... now when contraceptives are much more in use, the women become much more independent".[11] [...] In regard to welfare, he believes that "if someone gives money to an unemployed person, he should have his hand cut off because he is destroying the morale of the people".[11]"

 

 

No fascists here

Agree. No fascist here.

1. Being provocative is not equal to fascist.

2. Is there a written proof? If yes the it's not a factual statement, if no then how is this provocative?

3. He's personal opinions of women are his own. They may be strange or opposite of yours. Doesn't make him a fascist.

4. He oppose welfare, most right wingers do, so?

 

If those statements are fascist than what Merkel and Juncker are saying about POland makes them AH reincarnations.

 

Let me ask you, by your definition is there a possibility to be conservative or right wing without you calling people fascists?

Not apoligising for Hitler would be a start

The only country that should appologize for AH is Germany, agree.

The existence of written proof is only interesting for historians and people interested in history which JKM is.

Regardless of such documents existing AH was responsible whether he was fully aware or not of the scope of atrocious things Germans did in WWII.

This guy isn't a historian, he is a politician. If he implies Hitler did not know about the Holocaust, he is defending Hitler and thereby the entire Nazi ideology. And this should be glaringly obvious. If you ask why "right wing" or "nationalist" is so quickly associated with "fascist", look at what you are defending here.

I said he's interested in history. I'm defending a person you call fascist for no reason other than your sick and twisted interpretaion of his words. That's a fascist tactic Ben btw, FYI

A sick interpretation of his words?

 

Someone says "Hitler did not know about the Holocaust". If this were true, it would free Hitler of at least direct moral responsibility for the Holocaust; in other words tf implies Hitler's lack of guilt. Because the Holocaust is central to the argument of why Hitler should be considered what you might call evil, saying that Hitler was indeed not guilty of the Holocaust is also one of the strongest ways to free Hitler of moral guilt.

 

In other words, the argument he bings forward frees Hitler of moral guilt. Because he says it as a politician, saying this also gains political weight. Calling someone a fascist for freeing Hitler of moral guilt does not perhaps directly make you fascist, I'll give you that. But it certainly does show a strong tendency at least towards sympathy with fascism.

 

How is this sick or twisted? If you can point me to the mistakes I made and support your claim, I will admit that I did make that mistake. But just throwing insults at my face won't convince of your view as valid or of taking your view serious as an opposing stand worth considering and learning from. So do try to stay reasonable, if not for me then for the sake of the European philosophical tradition of reasoned discussion.

 

Lastly, what is a strategy actually often used by fascists is the falsification of history; that just as a side note.

Edited September 16, 2017 by Ben No.3

[HoonDing]

Hard to argue with anything Mikke talks about tbh

 

just look at what's going on in France and Germany

[Malcador]

This is insane. The "neo-nazis" are few and hold almost not political power. But places like CNN shilled for the authoritarian left Ati-fa (who, btw, represent an ideology far worse than the Nazis based on number killed). Many are anarco-commuinists. We didn't fight with them at all, and we have ALWAYS stood against authoritarian ideologies.  Don't paint them for what they aren't. There is a reason they have been classified as a terrorist organization since 2016 internally.

 

Kind of irrelevant to rely on body count to say they are worse than the Nazis. The latter had to be stopped by a conflict that killed millions, and in theory would have killed even more.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Show me where there are a lot of nazis. Show me where they hold meaningful social or political power.

Greece.

Even if you assume 100% of the people at charlottesville were Nazis or white supremacists (they weren't)

I don't care about their pronouns, if they're chanting Blood and Soil it's clear they are nazis.

And you know what? Before Antifa showed up there was no violence.

Take your #windowlivesmatter to someone who cares.

Even most of the people on any of the /pol/s think they are idiots (LARPing aside).

The aut-right is from /pol/ which is pretty much a reddit colony at this point anyway. The only reason it gets disavowed is because they realized they're all fat or skinnyfat robot-tier idiots and going out in public embarrasses daddy Trump.

[HoonDing]

"who, btw, represent an ideology far worse than the Nazis based on number killed"

 

capitalism must be worst

[Rosbjerg]

"who, btw, represent an ideology far worse than the Nazis based on number killed"

 

capitalism must be worst

 

If we're going by cumulative yeah - it's just that it's much more insidious and arguably harder to see, since it isn't a centralized state doing the killing.. And not much different from how human society has always churned the wheel.

 

Also victims of Communism and Fascism are much easier to identify, internal dissidents and minorities tend to stick out.

[Blodhemn]

Another hard left vs hard right sympathizer debate. Joy.

[SonicMage117]

I watched the newest Transformers which stated that a decipticon pocket watch killed Hitler and is kept accordingly in a british museum by hammerfell. Seems legit.

[Zoraptor]

 

Greece? The country that is run by the party that's literally called "The Coalition of the Radical Left"?

 

 

Ukraine. Worshipping that unredacted genocidal fascist Bandera as if he's a hero. And most ironically supported by Poland. Well, not quite most ironic, almost as ironic as Poland whining about 1939 when they blatantly stabbed the Lithuanians in the back and stole their land when they were fighting the soviets, and also helped partition rump Czechoslovakia early in 1939.

 

And, as always, the EIC/ Vic's Raj killed more people in India alone through capitalism than the history of communism- primarily so that they could pimp drugs to the Chinese as well.

Edited September 16, 2017 by Zoraptor

[Ben No.3]

 

A sick interpretation of his words?

 

Someone says "Hitler did not know about the Holocaust". If this were true, it would free Hitler of at least direct moral responsibility for the Holocaust; in other words tf implies Hitler's lack of guilt. Because the Holocaust is central to the argument of why Hitler should be considered what you might call evil, saying that Hitler was indeed not guilty of the Holocaust is also one of the strongest ways to free Hitler of moral guilt.

 

In other words, the argument he bings forward frees Hitler of moral guilt. Because he says it as a politician, saying this also gains political weight. Calling someone a fascist for freeing Hitler of moral guilt does not perhaps directly make you fascist, I'll give you that. But it certainly does show a strong tendency at least towards sympathy with fascism.

 

How is this sick or twisted? If you can point me to the mistakes I made and support your claim, I will admit that I did make that mistake. But just throwing insults at my face won't convince of your view as valid or of taking your view serious as an opposing stand worth considering and learning from. So do try to stay reasonable, if not for me then for the sake of the European philosophical tradition of reasoned discussion.

 

Lastly, what is a strategy actually often used by fascists is the falsification of history; that just as a side note.

Well first and foremost you just twisted his words that you quoted few posts before.

He didn't said "Hitler did not know about the Holocaust", he said that "there is no written proof" as in no documents, signed orders or other.

That is an historian statement (and factual) and means exactly that - there is no written proof.

This is in no way free AH of anything as he was the Fuhrer and was responsible for everything that his government, military and so on did in his name and in the name of Germany.

In other words if AH survived he would be convicted in Norymberg trials, no question about this. Written proof or not. He was responsible for WWII and all war atrocities including Holocaust.

I didn't form a single insult at you Ben, just to point out how resonable are you in this argument. You throwed an insult at a guy you know nothing about. His mother died in Warsaw Uprising fighting the nazies, calling him an AH apologist is the single most vile thing you can say about him

 

 

 

Show me where there are a lot of nazis. Show me where they hold meaningful social or political power.

Greece.

Greece? The country that is run by the party that's literally called "The Coalition of the Radical Left"?

"The question of overall responsibility for the atrocities committed under the Nazi regime traverses the oligarchy of those in command, foremost among them Adolf Hitler. In October 1939, he authorized the first Nazi mass killing for those labeled "undesirables" in the T-4 Euthanasia Program.[7][8] The Nazis termed such people as being "Lives Not Worth Living" or lebensunwertes Leben in German.[9] Before the euthanasia program in Germany-proper was over, the Nazis killed between 65,000–70,000 persons.[10] Historian Henry Friedlander calls this period during which the 70,000 adults were killed, the "first phase" of the T4 Program since the program and its contributors precipitated the Holocaust.[11] Sometime between late June 1940 when planning for Operation Barbarossa first started and March 1941, orders were approved by Hitler for the re-establishment of the Einsatzgruppen (the surviving historical record does not permit firm conclusions to be drawn about the precise date).[12] Hitler encouraged the killings of the Jews of Eastern Europe by the Einsatzgruppen death squads in a speech of July, 1941. [13] Evidence suggests that sometime in the fall of 1941, Himmler and Hitler agreed in principle on the complete mass extermination of the Jews of Europe by gassing, with Hitler explicitly ordering the "annihilation of the Jews" in a speech on December 12, 1941, by which time the Jewish populations in the Baltic states had been effectively eliminated.[14] To make for smoother intra-governmental cooperation in the implementation of this "Final Solution" to the "Jewish Question", the Wannsee conference was held near Berlin on January 20, 1942, with the participation of fifteen senior officials, led by Reinhard Heydrich and Adolf Eichmann; the records of which provide the best evidence of the central planning of the Holocaust. Just five weeks later on February 22, Hitler was recorded saying "We shall regain our health only by eliminating the Jew" to his closest associates.[15]"

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_Holocaust#CITEREFHillgruber1989

 

 

"he said that "there is no written proof" as in no documents, signed orders or other."

-you

 

There is no debate about wether Hitler ever ordered the Holocaust. Pretending that he didn't does nothing but cater to Neo Nazis. Anyone who spends even a minimum amount of time with politics should be aware of this.

Maybe this guy doesn't Heil Hitler at home. He certainly does make an effort to attract those who do.

Even if he may not call himself a Nazi, he goes long ways to get their votes.

 

Tell me, where am I wrong? Because catering to Nazis doesn't make you a lot different from being one. Not catering to nationalists, conservatives or patriots; catering to Nazis.

 

 

As for Greece, the Golden Dawn, who are quite literally Neo Nazis, holds more seats than the communists.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_Parliament

So yes, it is fair to say that the far right has more political impact than the far left in Greece.

Edited September 16, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Blarghagh]

 

There is no debate about wether Hitler ever ordered the Holocaust. Pretending that he didn't does nothing but cater to Neo Nazis. Anyone who spends even a minimum amount of time with politics should be aware of this.

Maybe this guy doesn't Heil Hitler at home. He certainly does make an effort to attract those who do.

Even if he may not call himself a Nazi, he goes long ways to get their votes.

 

Tell me, where am I wrong? Because catering to Nazis doesn't make you a lot different from being one. Not catering to nationalists, conservatives or patriots; catering to Nazis.

Is speech a document, now? Well some things certainly changed since I covered historical sources classification in school.

It did point out there is a record, a.k.a. it was documented, so yes it is 100% a document. What do you think document means? Must be handwritten and signed in triplicate? Hitler was a nazi, not a vogon.

[Ben No.3]

 

There is no debate about wether Hitler ever ordered the Holocaust. Pretending that he didn't does nothing but cater to Neo Nazis. Anyone who spends even a minimum amount of time with politics should be aware of this.

Maybe this guy doesn't Heil Hitler at home. He certainly does make an effort to attract those who do.

Even if he may not call himself a Nazi, he goes long ways to get their votes.

 

Tell me, where am I wrong? Because catering to Nazis doesn't make you a lot different from being one. Not catering to nationalists, conservatives or patriots; catering to Nazis.

Is speech a document, now? Well some things certainly changed since I covered historical sources classification in school.

 

Ben, no one is catering to nazies and your groundless accusations are more and more bizarre and boring. Actori incumbit probatio, not the other way around.

 

As for Greece, the Golden Dawn, who are quite literally Neo Nazis, holds more seats than the communists.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_Parliament

So yes, it is fair to say that the far right has more political impact than the far left in Greece.

Here Ben is trying to convince me that 17 seats of Golden Dawn is more than 144 seats by Syriza and in fact the Golden Dawn is ruling Greece nowadays.

Yet I'm accused of "half-truths"

Syriza is by no means communist. The actual communist party of Greece, KKE, has less seats than Golden Dawn, the actual Neo Nazi party. That is all I said. And it is quite worrying that Nazis get more seats than communists; since communists who do decide to participate in parliament, or bourgeois democracy if you will, naturally aren't the hard militant type, which isn't (necessarily) the case for Nazis. Edited September 17, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Ben No.3]

 

 

Greece? The country that is run by the party that's literally called "The Coalition of the Radical Left"?

 

Ukraine. Worshipping that unredacted genocidal fascist Bandera as if he's a hero. And most ironically supported by Poland. Well, not quite most ironic, almost as ironic as Poland whining about 1939 when they blatantly stabbed the Lithuanians in the back and stole their land when they were fighting the soviets, and also helped partition rump Czechoslovakia early in 1939.

 

And, as always, the EIC/ Vic's Raj killed more people in India alone through capitalism than the history of communism- primarily so that they could pimp drugs to the Chinese as well.

Agree Ukraine would be a better example than Greece. Hence my surprise with KP example.

Well we prefer to have a weak Ukraine behind border than Russia.

Poland had a long standing conflict with Czechoslovakia for Zaolzie. Both this and Germany rumb had a blessing from other western countries so we are all guilty of this.

As for Lithuania I don't know what you refer to, you need to be more specific.

 

As for the capitalism, first and foremost it's not a political system, it's a form of economy. Henceforth the politics of a country cannot be blamed on capitalism.

Unless you want to count conquistadors killing Aztecs for gold or the homo sapiens killing cro magnon man to get his stick as the victims of capitalism then I don't see how your examples would qualify.

Well you can't blame a philosophical idea for anything. Capitalism did not kill, the actors of capitalist systems did. Of course, much like socialism, there is a wide spectrum of thought within the proponents of the respective system on how said system should be archived. And both led to crimes against humanity; be it the suppression of people for the sake of profit like the East Indian Trade Company did, or the oppression of people for the sake of political power like under Stalin. The dismal record of both systems should not blind us to the promises they make; yet we also have to acknowledge the difference between their promises. The promise of capitalism is that of growth and economic wealth, the promise of socialism is a more humanitarian one.

But while keeping in mind their promises, we should not give in to the easy way out of saying the economic system had nothing to do with the political atrocities carried out. Politics do not correlate with economics, they are largely caused by it. A centrally planned socialist economy like in the USSR will in turn cause strong authoritarian states; and globally connected giant cooperations will lean towards exploitation especially of the weak for the sake of their profits. And we will not get anywhere if we don't acknowledge these flaws as inherent at least to the historically used form of the respective modes of production, rather than blaming it solely on the political structure build on them.

[Ben No.3]

 

Syriza is by no means communist. The actual communist party of Greece, KKE, has less seats than Golden Dawn, the actual Neo Nazi party. That is all I said. And it is quite worrying that Nazis get more seats than communists; since communists who do decide to participate in parliament, or bourgeois democracy if you will, naturally aren't the hard militant type, which isn't (necessarily) the case for Nazis.

No one mentioned communism, you did.

 

The question and answer was:

 

 

Show me where there are a lot of nazis. Show me where they hold meaningful social or political power.

Greece.

And you came to KP defense so either you claim that Golden Dawn with 17 seats is ruling in Greece and not Syriza with 144 seats then I don't see any point in your response to this.

the question wasn't wether they were ruling, it was wether they held "meaningful social or political power", and I backed this claim by showing that the extreme right does indeed hold significant power for an extremist group, especially in comparison to the extreme left.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The point isn't that Golden Dawn has power, but that they exist in relatively high numbers compared to their counterparts in other PIGS or the west as a whole. Thus there are going to be more antifa in comparison, similarly to how Azedus noticed their was Antifa in his hometown where there are a lot of neo-nazis.