Observations on contemporary resistance to proto-fascism and violence

To consider the advocating of erratic violence against the proto-fascist elements in the contemporary United States (which have always been latent, yet have taken to the streets more markedly since Trump’s assumption of executive power) it is worth observing some significant elements of the situation. 

There is a conspicuous lack of principle and analysis in the comments advocating violence.  In fact, many of the comments are so utterly devoid of reasoning that there is little to merit the taking of them seriously as genuine expressions of belief and practice.  The phenomenon of trolling, so rampant as it is on the internet, necessitates any serious person posting assertions to buttress them with at least a minimum of evidentiary premises.    

When calculating the ethical calculus of actions and tactics it is required to assess the predictable consequences of the actions and tactics being advocated and engaged in.  As a general principle, physical violence requires meeting a very significant burden of proof.  It must be stressed that within the current United States’ specific situation, violence is only ethically valid as a means of self-defense; in fact, such is essentially always the case. 

When there are confrontations in the streets between the racist, proto-fascist movements and those groups of people opposing them, it is crucial that one be nonviolent, lest one be guilty of igniting a highly combustible situation.  When one is confronted by violence, no doubt self-defense by any means necessary is justified.  Yet when there are racists and proto-fascists in the streets in whatever number they are, charging them and assaulting them with violence is not self-defense, to the contrary.  Further, when assaulting these repugnant people one of the most predictable consequences is their further entrenchment into their hideous ideologies and their engagement of violence in reaction. 

There are by far too many unhinged, armed white supremacists, many of whom are literally itching to harm people and those who are homicidal, if the violence is yet latent, it is irrational and unethical to assault and provoke these elements from their latencies into overt action. 

Those advocating “combat” are a combination of insincere, irrational and unethical in whatever specific composite. 

It is again worth taking account of the conspicuous lack of expressed principle and analysis of those advocating violence.  There has been clearer expressions of principle and analysis, if still fallacious in important ways, by Leninists, Maoists and other deviations from the communism of the “Marxist” movements.  This is another of the instances in which the holders on to the Bolshevism long since passed and discredited are in welcome agreement to other leftists in their revolutionary analysis. 

Don’t advocate assault and violence, instead organize.