What do anarchists do about right wing politics?

Question

To make this simple, what i mean by a right wing in this qestion is characterized by:

-unquestioning patriotism

-xenophobia and racism

I'm just asking this because people are still afraid of neo-nazi-esque organizations and opinions during the trump era. I can't really blame people for being afraid of the right because right wing politics can be pretty blatantly ugly. The typical anti-fa line is suppression and shaming, but it doesn't seem to work. The reason that many people have lost interest in far-right ideas seems mostly to do with the civil rights movement of the 60's and just a general cultural nihilism and skepticism towards people who seem to "have the answers".

So what type of attitude or action should anarchist take when it comes to right wing politics?

Comments

unquestioned patriotism is not just a right wing thing. i would say most ideologues are unquestioningly patriotic to their ideologies.

as to xenophobia and racism, i would treat that as i would any form of bigotry. when someone acts in ways that are oppressive and authoritarian towards another, i think they should be dealt with directly, by those being treated that way (along with their allies). how they deal is up to them. that is based on action/behavior. ideas - and words - are a different thing to me. i find it a bit hypocritical - and a slippery slope - when lefties act to prevent righties from talking (or vice versa). obviously people have very different ideas about what it means to be "free".

---

that's a good point about unquestioning patriotism, there are people on the left who advocate very patriotic and loyalist ways of thinking, it's just that unquestioning patriotism is the typical fascist line and it has a lot in common with racism and xenophobia (i.e., nationalism and racism go hand in hand)

---

the attitude or action i would take would all depend on how i encounter "right wing politics"....

do you mean in a conversation with a person? one you know well or barely at all?

and the meaning of "should" take? toward what purpose?

---

I think nihilist meant they're chauvinists. Chauvinism seems more prevalent among right-wingers than left-wingers or people that could care less. 

I gotta say, groups like the alt-right to a degree monopolized off the talking points of occupy wall street and tweaking them slightly by blaming some ethnic/racial group, usually the Jews. They've been pretty successful doing that throughout the years.

Do they even care about ethics in video game journalism anymore???

I personally will continue to ignore them for reasons that may or may not be obvious.

Answer 1

Personally, if I engage with these sorts of folks, I tend to challenge their assumptions where they come up vis a vis conversation. I challenge assumptions, ask questions that allow me to delve deeper, and state my perspective with as much candor or guard seems appropriate to the situation.

There are times that is not appropriate, and dealing with racism, patriotism, and xenophobia needs action, a quick perusal of IGD or Anews will give ideas of what this might look like in different situations. I am wary of antifa as a primary focus for anarchists, and I live in a particular place where being actively anti-fascist does feel like something that anarchists need to actively engage in, even if I find no personal drive to engage in street fighting, etc. Living in a place that has been identified as a future aryan homeland creates particular... challenges?... opportunities? IDK. It is hard to dismiss the actions of antifa living where I do, but I am wary.

(i might amend this answer, as I am not totally happy with it and suspect I am not answering your question, but I also might let it sit and let comments allow me space to further hash out what I want to say)

Comments

"one of the good things about knowing where your enemies are is knowing where to send your -violent- opposition"

absolutely! i would expand that to include whatever response one chooses to have. from violent opposition/attack to conscious avoidance (and everything in between); context will always help determine what my response is.

i think there are probably times when "ignorance is bliss" makes sense. having people around that would choose to kill, injure or imprison me or those i care (which would of course include cops, etc as well as right/left wing wingnuts) about is definitely not one of those times.

---

@shinmin:

"also i find the insistance that 'making racists afraid makes the problem worse', i.e. the narrative of appeasement, to be a bit tired."

i never said anything about appeasing racists and fascists, not combating racists is not the same thing as appeasing them. Lumping a bunch of different things that people say into narratives seems more ideological Appeasing means aiding or bending your own ideas to fit someone elses. Non-confrontation is not the same thing.

---

@nihilist im probably being a bit overly belligerent about this, especially since i have no real stake in this discussion outside of my own opinions, but the reason i brought up appeasement was because that is the name given to the german policies of a few pre-war allied powers, those policies effectively being 'non-confrontation'.  i mean technically those pre war governments 'gave' things to the nazi government, like the sudetenland.  but of course they werent really in a position to 'give' czech controlled land to the nazis, it was effectively just a case of saying 'we are not going to confront you if you do this'.  im probably pushing the ww2 analogies 2 far.

but given how hard the right push for being protected and allowed to speak, well then saying thats what we 'should' do is appeasement in my mind.  i dont mind people who dont do anything about fascists, and just avoid them.  which is a good thing, because im one of those people.  but i shouldnt need to point out that even now fascist types are more frequently violent than their violent opposition, so the whole 'dont hurt their feelings, it makes everything worse' thing winds me the wrong way.  besides, i have to defend it because i really enjoyed the re-mixes of that spencer guy getting punched. :|  yes, im that low brow.

i understand where your coming from for sure though, i just dont really like it.

---

"dont hurt their feelings, it makes everything worse"

lol!

i'm sure i am taking that out of context, but that idea - regarding nazis/fascists - just cracks me up!

---

the debate over effectiveness (excluding them more just makes them more desperate) will always be somewhat abstract, since people respond so differently to the same stimulus. i would bet/expect that many people who are further isolated get depressed and kill themselves (either immediately or through slower means like drugs--any thoughts on the opioid deaths and their relationship to the political--not just economic--situation?).

the debate over at what point we (whoever we is) intervene in rhetoric includes questions of a) effectiveness (what will actually get it to stop); b) community bonding (We're not Them); definition (at what points are we not like them?), and probably more. And they get tangled together very quickly, especially online, with people who don't know each other and can't check out non-written-word cues.

this has been a public service announcement. you may now return to your regularly scheduled conversations... ;)