What level of violence is acceptable

Your example is not an initiation of violence. It is in response to the attacker's initiation of violence.

 

It depends.

No violence for most ideologies; however, if your ideology has genocide or the targeting of minorities as a key component (e.g Fascism, Nazism) then I support crushing it via any means.

 

Fascism doesn't target minorities. In fact, Fascism has no concern with minorities. Other than "everything within the State, nothing without the State." Fascism, simply put would reject identity politics, for a Civic Nation instead. Mussolini wanted to rebuild the Roman Empire, and revitalize the Italian economy. He had a mixed domestic bag, if you exclude violence.

In the first place, you ANTIFA don't even know the real, historical Fascism. Just what CNN regurgitated in a one minute lecture on a complicated political thesis of thought LOL.

 

Battle of Cable Street.

British Union of Fascists targeted a Jewish neighbourhood and got their asses kicked.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-15171772

 

Most people see violence as unacceptable in these protest contexts. What I don't understand is when a police force is given a stand down order during these events. This seems to be something that mayors and governors on the left thinks is a good idea. Why is that?

 

So wait, your ideological argument against Fascism comes from ONE incident in Britain(not Italy, but Britain?) Seriously?
I mean, I know you want to cling to your cause(since, as a cause it's pretty much the only thing you have going to you.) But your comrades are lying and deceiving you.

-Trump is not a Fascist/Racist.
-There isn't a racist government.
-No civil rights have been loss, none that I can see anyway.
-And Fascism as a whole didn't target anyone.

Fascism was more about a centralized economy/government, for maximum efficiency. The whole of the country better than individual sums.

 

A quick answer is WW2
In simple form. A schoolyard bully. You can avoid the bully but that doesn't stop the bully. There comes a time when you have to stand up to the bully. You can talk all the love you want to them but more than likely your going to have to defend yourself.....because they are a bully. The one who throws the first punch is the one who ran out of ideas.
Philosophically the sentiments expressed so far are admirable and I agree with but the truth is life is different.
To use current examples the Nazi movement has grown rapidly here in the US and is projected to continue to grow. Have we seen this movie before? You can say that it's fine to let them rail and turn the corner and giggle but how long will it be before you turn the corner and see more of the same? That's the question that's coming front in center in the US today.

 

None of this is the initiation of violence. It is all response to violence already initiated by others. The initiation of violence is NEVER justified.

 

But what if they target minorities, however in a peaceful, non-violent way? For example, White nationalists, who don't want to live with minorities. Would you use violence against them?

 

Turin Massacure of 1922 (against the working class) http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13532940500284242
The Italian invasion of Abyssina (where chemical weapons were used) http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-chemical-attacks-timelin-idUSBRE97L0RI20130822


I could keep going with the crimes of Franco, Pinochet et al but I have no interest in talking with a fasicst.

 

Your fellow socialists killed far more people than anybody on the right.

 

That is impossible.

Say you make it harder for black people to access healthcare.

That's systemic violence as it is purposefully denying them access to services that they need for their health.

 

Mussolini had one of the longer runs of power in the late-20's all the way up until the second world war(Italy lost first among the AXIS.). You're right to point out in the beginning, there was basically a violent civil war inside Italy. He himself doesn't hide from it. But from 1925-onwards, it was political consolidation and a philosophical approach.

And arguing over war tactics, is not a political discussion lol. I mean, you realize you have no cause for what you believe to be Fascism.

 

How so? Maybe they can relocate to a relatively secluded area and set up an "All-White land". And then restrict membership to white persons only. There is no violence involved.

Would you be OK with this?

Black people can still access healthcare in other parts of US. Parts of areas that are not under White Nationalists' control.

 

Stalin, Mao etc killed millions hence why I am not a Marxist-Leninist and any socialist who tries to defend them is little better than a fascist but you are wrong as capitalism kills 20 million people a year.

 

Oh, so you're one of the good socialists, eh?

 

The IRS targeting conservatives, the Obama administration unmasking political opponents, the list goes on.

 

Theoretically, I am not comfortable with the idea but they aren't hurting anyone so I wouldn't be against it.

However, practically that is never going to happen.

I will rephrase though and say it is almost impossible to be a white supremacist and non-violent.

 

I respect you for this.

Some are white supremacists however most are White nationalists. There is a difference.

 

There is good and bad in everything.

Socialism, under the model adopted by Marxist-Leninist states, was and is a failure.
Capitalism, under the model adopted by liberal democracies, was and is a failure.

The difference is that capitalism is inherently exploitative, and puts profit above people.

 

No, I gave an example of initiating violence because you believe violence was ABOUT TO BE COMMITTED. If a person aims a gun at another person, there is no guarantee that he will pull the trigger. This is a case where one uses a pre-emptive strike. "I believe that person is definitely going to shoot someone else, so I am going to act first before he can do so."

 

Socialism runs contrary to human nature, which is why it has failed, and continues to fail. Your no-true-Scotsman approach of explaining away the inherent failures of socialism and your purely theoretical "It will work!" fantasies are a testament to that failure. Meanwhile hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty in just the 21st century according to Pew Research.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/07/08/a-global-middle-class-is-more-promise-than-reality/

Marx, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez, and a few others are the only real examples you can point to as evidence of your ideology, and they've all been disasters. The truth is you need a huge authoritarian and oppressive system of Government to change human nature and the inherent advantages that some people have over others in what we call a "market". You can't correct that imbalance without a huge amount of social re-engineering, and control. Your wannabe intellectual, white tower ideology will always remain theoretically possible, but that's as close as you will get to it. Any actual socialism put in place will fail, just like it always has. It will continue to be something the wannabe "enlightened" believe in, for no other reason than for them to continue feeling like the enlightened.

 

I think you have a point. This is definitely a gray area.

I believe the only entities who are equipped to deal with this sort of thing, as in, determining whether someone who shot another person pre-emptively is within his right to do so, are judges and courts. However, the antifa is neither. So they can't say, "oh the nazis were about to get violent so we decided to get violent first".

 

But what makes a bully, a bully? They are beating up other kids.

A bully is not "Someone with an ideology I hate." If someone walks around the schoolyard with a "bad idea" I don't think I have any right to attack him just because of his personal beliefs. You're assuming all white supremacists are bullies. I don't see it that way. I don't like their ideas, but if they obey the laws, I have no problems with them. personally. Just as I have no problem with someone who thinks all black people are superior, or all Irish people are superior, or all Australians are superior. Whatever. Believe what you want, as long as you behave and obey the laws.

Bullies aren't people walking around the schoolyard saying, "I'm superior to you." That's not a bully. Maybe an arrogant jerk, but not a bully.

Bullies abuse people. Physically or mentally or both.

Physically attacking people is illegal. You can sue people for libel and slander. Until a person breaks the law, leave them alone. Or do we want to start sending out "Thought Police"? To see if people have the wrong beliefs and ideas and therefore should be subject to being punched first, as you put it.

 

Regardless of what you say- what you do defines who you really are. Most flawed ideology eventually collapses of it's own weight, but in the interim can become very dangerous. The question is when intervention is appropriate. When despicable ideology becomes despicable action, a line is crossed and force becomes one of the alternatives to prevent it's expansion. Exactly when and how would vary, and hopefully those who control it would be both prudent and strong. This does not address who should intervene, that is a much broader question.