• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

WashingtonPost: "Who are the antifa?"

Raven117

Member

Raven117

Member
A high school degree is pretty much required as a US citizen, do you think neo-nazis grew up being taught that nazis weren't evil or something
Not just university and schools.

I did say those susceptable to the message. Some people just want to be evil, and do evil things, and find causes that allow them to do it.
 

MUnited83

For you.
Chaos Reigns! </jokes>

I mean, the outlawing of marijuana was passed due in large part to its disproportional use among African Americans at the time so they could limit voting rights.

But yeah, these are the people you want making hate speech determinations.

They can already make laws, so, again: are you against having a legal system? After all, it can be used for evil, so you should do away completely with it, right?
 

Nafai1123

Banned
What is stopping an Executive Order right now?

But more accute, Im not really talking about the POTUS, Im talking about Congress. And Im talking about the Congresses to come.

We KNOW, we effing know, that Congress has passed laws that are unconsitutional that sought to limit peoples freedom. Abortion, Gay Marriage, Contraception, just to name a few. These rights came from the Constitution (and SCOTUS' interpretation).

Yet these are the very people yall want making "hate speech" calls. Just amazing to me.

Yes, I have confidence that any of these incredibly vague concerns about hate speech laws would be defeated in the SCOTUS, just like the unconstitutional laws you mentioned. Keep in mind that these hate-speech laws you're talking about would hurt both the GOP and Dems. It would be beneficial to no one.
 

Raven117

Member
They can already make laws, so, again: are you against having a legal system? After all, it can be used for evil, so you should do away completely with it, right?

Of course not. There is not a right to murder. Pass a law. There is a right to free speech. Don't pass a law.
 

TTOOLL

Member
Each branch, by the very self-identification "antifa," has the full intention of using violence and chaos to protest fascism. That's what antifa is.

You can't have a decentralized movement, prop up the good ones, and pretend there's no bad ones. It's intellectually dishonest.

Objection, you can if it's the movement you support. I learned it here, EVERYBODY who voted Trump is racist, homophobic etc, even those who voted for Obama too years ago.
 

Raven117

Member
Yes, I have confidence that any of these incredibly vague concerns about hate speech laws would be defeated in the SCOTUS, just like the unconstitutional laws you mentioned. Keep in mind that these hate-speech laws you're talking about would hurt both the GOP and Dems. It would be beneficial to no one.
Is your first sentence agreeing with me? Can't quite follow that.

The hate speech laws, if given free reign and taken to the extreme would be a noose that slowly closes down on what people can and cant say.

One dude asked for an example. I don't have one as Free Speech is really a pretty new idea in the course of human history. What isn't new is a governments abuse of power.
 
Objection, you can if it's the movement you support. I learned it here, EVERYBODY who voted Trump is racist, homophobic etc, even those who voted for Obama too years ago.

of course. why else would you vote for trump?

ps i dont think this is the hole you want to go down considering the events of the last week
 
I don't see antifa as a thing the same way I didn't see "anti-gamergate" as a thing. Antifa is just something invented by the alt-right in a way to spin a narrative that pits two extremes against each other that are "both the same" rather than one extremist group, and basically everyone else which is actually the case.
 
Objection, you can if it's the movement you support. I learned it here, EVERYBODY who voted Trump is racist, homophobic etc, even those who voted for Obama too years ago.
Damn you're really upset that people here don't like your source huh. Did you also learn that people who don't think highly of Jewish white supremacists are anti-Semitic bigots who are comparable to nazis here or was that somewhere else
Each branch, by the very self-identification "antifa," has the full intention of using violence and chaos to protest fascism. That's what antifa is.

You can't have a decentralized movement, prop up the good ones, and pretend there's no bad ones. It's intellectually dishonest.
I didn't really pretend there weren't any bad ones though, I already said if the Berkeley pepper spraying was sanctioned by anti-fa then that's shitty. But the overall message and most branches do a lot more good than harm in my experience.
 
I want to give this post all of the credit its due. It is smart, well written and well informed. I will try and find the time to respond to it with the respect it deserves and not some half-assed answer. You raise some excellent excellent points. This is the absolute best post I've read on NeoGaf in quite sometime.

I want to try and at least address this line, because I think it is an unfair characterization.


Absolutely not. There can and should be many consequences to anyone who speaks hate. (Do note that the First Amendment does not protect True Threats and some of the things you are describing do fall into that category and are thus not protected.)

CONSEQUENCES of speech, is decidedly different from the right to say it all. I truly, truly believe that the government cannot (except under exceedingly limited circumstances like true threats) be given one iota of power to determine what speech is and is not allowed purly on its face. Especially now. There are other avenues of law to take to hold these people accountable for their speech...

Once you brand Nazis speech as banned, what's next? BLM? ANTIFA? Anyone in power who doesn't like their opponents? Hate speech. Banned. Not allowed. Republicans would effing have LOVED to have banned Occupy, ANTIFA, BLM, name it. What you are proposing allows to game the system and we will be less free.

I don't trust authority at all. I dont' trust the government due to their susceptibility to change. I don't want to give them any...any more power than they already have. It will end in abuse and whatever comforts some folks may enjoy by banning one type of speech, could be changed in the next...or limited in the next...and there will still be suffering, but now without the ability to speak.
Thank you for taking the time to do so. While that is indeed a very understandable fear and I in no way want to downplay it, I don't find such fears themselves to be a valid justification. After all, while those are indeed possibilities, refusing to act out of fear of them downplays our ability to fight them even if they do come to pass. It presumes that if that indeed happens, that that's the end--that that will be that, and that will be all she wrote. But that's not true. Even if that does happen (which I refuse to accept based on the efforts of other nations, but even if it does), we can then it turn fight those laws, as we should. That's absolutely no reason not to fight to begin with though. If we don't, it's already lost.

I expand on this more elsewhere when someone else brought up a very similar point:
Yes, such follow-up laws, if they indeed happen, would be completely 100% unjust and deserve to be fought and kicked down. That's absolutely, positively no reason not to try at all and to allow the current situation to stand. Regardless of any hypothetical consequences, hate speech itself is nonetheless unjust and deserves absolutely no protections. No matter what hypothetical consequences, that remains true and in no way changes. All that says is that those piggyback laws would be unjust. It doesn't change the fact that hate speech is currently legal in the United States despite it causing any number of different types of harm to its targets, an inherently unjust proposition. No matter what the hypothetical consequences you come up with, all that says is that those consequences too are unjust. It doesn't change the fact that hate speech is essentially completely legal in the United States, despite the harm it causes, an inherently unjust proposition which should not be allowed to stand.

Yes, of course there are risks to acting and changing the law! There always are! But if and when those arise, we are capable of dealing with those as well and not allowing to them to stand one moment longer than they have to! That is not, however, by any stretch of the imagination, any excuse for not acting at all to begin with when the current situation itself is unjust and allows others to cause harm with no repercussions or justice being allowed to be served whatsoever. That's something I refuse to accept, particularly when we do in fact have the power to enact change and make sure that such justice does occur and such acts are not allowed to continue unabated.

To do otherwise, is to simply give into fear over what might or might not be, and let that fear decide our actions, while injustices continue to go on while we refuse to act and refuse to change the situation. But to quote FDR:
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. And I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

Of course, to be perfectly clear as I don't at all want to imply otherwise, it's perfectly natural to be afraid of such possibilities. That's just part of being human--naturally being afraid that the things we care about the most could be stripped away at any moment. But at the same time while it's perfectly natural and understandable, as FDR himself said, we can't allow ourselves to be paralyzed by that fear or else needed efforts to progress and improve our situation instead of letting the status quo continue unabated will just disappear entirely.

So while indeed it's perfectly natural and understandable to be afraid, it's unnecessary, because even in the event the worst happens, we can then stand up against that and fight that in turn with everything we've got. And then just continue to fight, and continue to fight, and continue to fight, as long as it takes. But nothing, absolutely nothing, can happen or change if we refuse to fight to begin with. And that's something I refuse to accept with injustices such as these occurring every day.

After all, in the end, all we have to fear is fear itself. That's the real enemy here. Just take a look at your own post. You seem to recognize that it's indeed unfair and unjust that people are targeted by hate speech and there's nothing they can do about it, but you refuse to act to change the status quo because of what you fear will happen next if that indeed occurs. Those fears are valid and natural, but they're nonetheless no reason to let an unjust situation stand. Cause even if worst comes to worst, we can deal with that in turn. But that's no reason not to act to begin with and to let injustices stand. I completely refuse to accept that, 100%. To give into fear like that, no matter how valid, justified, and understandable those fears are, is to lose before we've even begun to fight. And giving in and losing without so much as a fight is something that I refuse to do.
 

Raven117

Member
Objection, you can if it's the movement you support. I learned it here, EVERYBODY who voted Trump is racist, homophobic etc, even those who voted for Obama too years ago.

Yikes, and I thought i was fighting a losing battle here on Gaf.

Bro, know your audience and your timing. This is truly not the hill you want to die on here.
 

CHEEZMO™

Obsidian fan
Antifa is just something invented by the alt-right in a way to spin a narrative that pits two extremes against each other that are "both the same" rather than one extremist group, and basically everyone else which is actually the case.

Did your consciousness of the world spring into being ex nihilo 3 weeks ago?
 

MUnited83

For you.
Objection, you can if it's the movement you support. I learned it here, EVERYBODY who voted Trump is racist, homophobic etc, even those who voted for Obama too years ago.

That's exactly what they are.

Man you're really angry we called your boy Shapiro exactly what he was.
Hilariously calling people "bigots" as well for calling out Shapiro for being an asshole, which is amusing to say the least.
 
That's exactly what they are.

Man you're really angry we called your boy Shapiro exactly what he was.
Hilariously calling people "bigots" as well for calling out Shapiro for being an asshole, which is amusing to say the least.
You're a bigot if you don't like a white supremacist talking head but not a bigot if you vote for a white supremacist nazi-defender.
 

Raven117

Member
Thank you for taking the time to do so. While that is indeed a very understandable fear and I in no way want to downplay it, I don't find such fears themselves to be a valid justification. After all, while those are indeed possibilities, refusing to act out of fear of them downplays our ability to fight them even if they do come to pass. It presumes that if that indeed happens, that that's the end--that that will be that, and that will be all she wrote. But that's not true. Even if that does happen (which I refuse to accept based on the efforts of other nations, but even if it does), we can then it turn fight those laws, as we should. That's absolutely no reason not to fight to begin with though. If we don't, it's already lost.

I expand on this more elsewhere when someone else brought up a very similar point:

Again, you articulate your points exceedingly well. Your well thought out, essays of posts (i mean this with sincerity), deserve a proper response. It will take a few hours to truly respond in kind (and I need to get out of the office). I will try and respond though. I am not ignoring you.

Know that your posts are gold man. A+.
 
That's exactly what they are.

Man you're really angry we called your boy Shapiro exactly what he was.
Hilariously calling people "bigots" as well for calling out Shapiro for being an asshole, which is amusing to say the least.

When people think you can use bigot as a label for people who disagree with you it's understandable that they'd be afraid of laws against hate speech.
 

jph139

Member
I didn't really pretend there weren't any bad ones though, I already said if the Berkeley pepper spraying was sanctioned by anti-fa then that's shitty. But the overall message and most branches do a lot more good than harm in my experience.

There is no "sanctioned by antifa." That's the problem with a decentralized, anonymous movement - it can't support or decry any individual actions. The good antifa you support, and the bad antifa you don't? They're all equally valid uses.

That being said, I'm glad they were there in Charlottesville. End of the day we're on the same page there. I would agree that, overall, antifa does more good than harm.

But they absolutely do harm. And I think strongly promoting them as heroes and a force for good contributes to that harm. When we start to trumpet violence in pursuit of a just end as something noble and righteous, rather than a necessary evil, we become desensitized to its use. And when we become desensitized to its use, it gets used more. And when it gets used more, innocent people get hurt.

My position: Letting Nazis roam the countryside will hurt a LOT of innocent people. So we have to stop them.

If we can't stop them peacefully, we're gonna have to stop them violently.

That sucks.
 
People (with privilege) think everything can be stopped that way.

The fact is that violence, historically speaking, has done quite a lot to advance many morally good causes. Civil Rights in this country would have got almost fucking nowhere without violence.

Can't condone it though. Getting real meta, violence is only useful when you're not actively promoting it.

Anyways, though on the first page many people were saying "everyone is antifa if they aren't fascist," the use of violence makes it easy to distance oneself from the group.
 

Ekai

Member
The coolest ANTIFA from the 80s and 90s were the syndicate and the baldies. They were punk skinheads in physical appearance, but they beat the shit out of nazis all over the Midwest.

Now those are true American heroes. Where's their monument?
 
American-Revolution-Hero-H.jpeg

Pictured: Portrait of Antifa organization c. Late 18th Century

Allegedly violent
 

sphagnum

Banned
I don't see antifa as a thing the same way I didn't see "anti-gamergate" as a thing. Antifa is just something invented by the alt-right in a way to spin a narrative that pits two extremes against each other that are "both the same" rather than one extremist group, and basically everyone else which is actually the case.

This is incorrect. Antifa is an actual thing, a self-chosen term by people who utilize specific methods to fight fascists, which began decades ago.
 
Again, you articulate your points exceedingly well. Your well thought out, essays of posts (i mean this with sincerity), deserve a proper response. It will take a few hours to truly respond in kind (and I need to get out of the office). I will try and respond though. I am not ignoring you.

Know that your posts are gold man. A+.
Alright. thank you. I'm about to head off, but I'll just leave it at one last thing before I forget:

I want to say that I'm brave about this, but in reality, if I'm fully honest with myself, I'm not. I'm terrified of many of the same things occurring. But when I get scared about that type of thing, I just take a moment to take a deep breath, relax, and remind myself that while it's easy to go down a dark rabbit hole of terrifying possibilities which could all quite easily happen, that within those possibilities are always lights of hope that will never, ever fade, no matter how much anyone might try to make them do so.

Because even if the worst happens and laws are also passed to ban this or that, that's no place we haven't been before. And such laws have gotten struck down in the past, and if those type of laws do sign up to ban groups that do good, those laws will inevitably be struck down as well. It may take a longer fight than we might like, it might be lot harder and longer than it should be, but it will happen.

So instead of being afraid of what else will happen if hate speech is made illegal/unconstitutional, I welcome it. Become no matter how many unjust laws follow, every last one of them will in due time be struck down. It might be a longer and harder fighter than it ever should be, but just as unjust laws have been stricken down sooner or later in the past, so would such piggy-back laws be stricken down in the future. And while every single one of them will fail to pass muster sooner or later, hate speech itself will no longer permitted and we will have made a tremendous gain.

So instead of despairing what could come next if hate speech is made illegal, I see hope. Blight, vivid hope that tells me that no matter how bad things gets if that does happen, good people, tremendously good, brave people will fight all of those off with everything they've got and then some, and that all of that, no matter how bad it gets, will be able to be overcome.

And that's why, even though in truth I myself am scared of what else could come next if hate speech is banned, I don't listen to that fear but rather listen to that hope instead which tells me that no matter how bad I think things might get all I truly have to fear is what happens if good, noble men and women refuse to fight and give up without doing anything. As long as that doesn't happen though, there's nothing to truly fear. Because both past and present show that men and women will fight any unjust attempts to piggyback off of such laws, and while such fights might be longer and harder than they have any right to be, they will be inevitably won all the same, every single time. That can't be stopped, no matter how much anyone tries, and the world will slowly but surely become a better place as a result. And that's why I personally chose to see hope instead of fear and refuse to give into what ifs.
 
This is incorrect. Antifa is an actual thing, a self-chosen term by people who utilize specific methods to fight fascists, which began decades ago.

It's a thing in the same way a lot of "anti" organizations are a thing. I rarely see it outside of it being a pejorative used by neo-nazis and/or Trump supporters because almost everyone is against fascism because fascism isn't a good thing. Were the allies antifa? Oh they were so violent.
 

sphagnum

Banned
It's a thing in the same way a lot of "anti" organizations are a thing. I rarely see it outside of it being a pejorative used by neo-nazis and/or Trump supporters because almost everyone is against fascism because fascism isn't a good thing.

No, I mean you're just factually wrong here. It is an actual loose collection of radical left activists who are willing to be violent.

The right wing uses it as a smear against any protestor at these rallies, but it is actually a thing. Like how people use the word "fascist" all the time for anything they dont like (ex: Reagan, Bush) yet there actually are fascists out there.

Being anti-fascist does not make someone Antifa.
 
No, I mean you're just factually wrong here. It is an actual loose collection of radical left activists who are willing to be violent.

The right wing uses it as a smear against any protestor at these rallies, but it is actually a thing. Like how people use the word "fascist" all the time for anything they dont like (ex: Reagan, Bush) yet there actually are fascists out there.

Being anti-fascist does not make someone Antifa.

Except an actual fascist is in office and that's why the term antifa is springing up. You probably didn't hear the term until Trump took office. And yeah the right wing does use it to smear any protester which is kind of the point.

What

They use liberal to smear people dude, antifa has been relevant for a while now.

When was the first time you heard "antifa" then?
 
Except an actual fascist is in office and that's why the term antifa is springing up. You probably didn't hear the term until Trump took office. And yeah the right wing does use it to smear any protester which is kind of the point.
What

They use liberal to smear people dude, antifa has been relevant for a while now.
 
If the "Antifa" of America truly are liberal saints they picked a horrible moniker to appropriate. These guys in Europe are huge assholes who apply their "violent resistance" to capitalist events like the G20 and oppose war efforts vs. ISIS. I think many of them are anarchists of various types, who have a long tradition in Europe.

My suggestion: call your anti-trump resistance something else.
 

sphagnum

Banned
Except an actual fascist is in office and that's why the term antifa is springing up. You probably didn't hear the term until Trump took office. And yeah the right wing does use it to smear any protester which is kind of the point.

I'm a communist. I first heard the term Antifa like 15 years ago.
 

sphagnum

Banned
Who says Antifa? The only time I see the word is from a hardcore trump supporter on reddit. Do anarchists call themselves that too?

I feel like this post explains a lot about many posts in this thread

Edit: ok, to be fair, yes, it's a self applied term. Not all anarchists are Antifa and not all Antifa are anarchists but there is significant overlap. It's a specific tendency/focus/tactic/whatever
 

Laughing Banana

Weeping Pickle
Man, it seems like the situation in the US right now is at the point where at any moment, an event with catastrophic level of violence can just occur out of the blue.

So scary.
 

jviggy43

Member
Objection, you can if it's the movement you support. I learned it here, EVERYBODY who voted Trump is racist, homophobic etc, even those who voted for Obama too years ago.

This is the logical of equivalent of "I can't be racist because I have a black friend".

Man, it seems like the situation in the US right now is at the point where at any moment, an event with catastrophic level of violence can just occur out of the blue.

So scary.

This is nothing new for us.
 
If you post a 45 minute video and not even post a summary that wouldn't fly for creating a thread so why are you getting defensive over it not flying for a post? And again. Ben Shapiro is a piece of shit. Garbage. Revolting. Awful. etc. etc.

It's not on him to provide you with a summary of the video. As you hate Shapiro and weren't gonna watch the video, you'd be better off ignoring his post altogether. Spouting your dislike for and insulting Shapiro while being engaged in a conversation about the video posted online while at the same time refusing to watch and refute the points he makes in said video shows more about you than anything else, to be honest.

OT: I have stated on this very forum what I think of antifa and how I wouldn't feel safe around them at all. The feeling is still the same after that post, which was made a few months back. If someone put a gun to my head and told me I had to pick between being in the middle of antifa or the middle of an alt right group during a protest, I would just flip a coin, because I think I would die either way.
 

Laughing Banana

Weeping Pickle
This is nothing new for us.

Yeah, I mean, many on the right say and do some very nasty, violent stuff and many on the left have said that they're perfectly willing to do anything to counter those in the right by any means necessary, including violence.

One of these days it seems like these two forces will collide and nobody could stop them, especially not since practically nobody view the government with any modicum of respect whatsoever right now.

But maybe an event with catastrophic level of violence is exactly what the US needs to change things. Scary thought nonetheless.
 

Morrigan Stark

Arrogant Smirk
I don't see antifa as a thing the same way I didn't see "anti-gamergate" as a thing. Antifa is just something invented by the alt-right in a way to spin a narrative that pits two extremes against each other that are "both the same" rather than one extremist group, and basically everyone else which is actually the case.
Who says Antifa? The only time I see the word is from a hardcore trump supporter on reddit. Do anarchists call themselves that too?
Uh, you guys are dead wrong. You might be thinking of "alt-left" which is indeed a made up term. But antifa has been around for decades and it's a term they chose for themselves.

Just because you are ignorant about them doesn't mean they weren't around... -_-
 
Uh, you guys are dead wrong. You might be thinking of "alt-left" which is indeed a made up term. But antifa has been around for decades and it's a term they chose for themselves.

Just because you are ignorant about them doesn't mean they weren't around... -_-

It's been hijacked by the right at least in some internet circles. It has replaced cuck and it's their new favorite word. This is the first time I've seen antifa used in mainstream media. Another example of how influential they can be with the media.
 
Except an actual fascist is in office and that's why the term antifa is springing up. You probably didn't hear the term until Trump took office. And yeah the right wing does use it to smear any protester which is kind of the point.



When was the first time you heard "antifa" then?

Are you American? Antifa has a long history in Europe as a far-left counterpart to Neo-nazi/far right-wing gangs and organisations like the National Front and Golden Dawn. The modern iteration of the group (as opposed to, y'know, the original organisation who actually fought against the Nazis) has its roots in 1980s Britain and developed through much of the rest of Europe and Australia during the 1990s.

Part of the problem with Antifa is that they function something like Anonymous in that they are basically an ideologically-amorphous collective (although frequently associated with anarchist ideology) whose modus operandi is violent resistance against fascism.
 
It's not on him to provide you with a summary of the video. As you hate Shapiro and weren't gonna watch the video, you'd be better off ignoring his post altogether. Spouting your dislike for and insulting Shapiro while being engaged in a conversation about the video posted online while at the same time refusing to watch and refute the points he makes in said video shows more about you than anything else, to be honest.

OT: I have stated on this very forum what I think of antifa and how I wouldn't feel safe around them at all. The feeling is still the same after that post, which was made a few months back. If someone put a gun to my head and told me I had to pick between being in the middle of antifa or the middle of an alt right group during a protest, I would just flip a coin, because I think I would die either way.
If someone posts a video by an outspoken bigot I'm gonna call them out for it. And I wasn't even the one asking for a summary, just responding to his nonsense defensive post about how he shouldn't need to post a summary for a 45 minute video from a piece of shit.

The fact that you think antifa and the alt-right are equal in terms of deadly violence in America is funny though considering last weekend.
 

Flo_Evans

Member
Uh, you guys are dead wrong. You might be thinking of "alt-left" which is indeed a made up term. But antifa has been around for decades and it's a term they chose for themselves.

Just because you are ignorant about them doesn't mean they weren't around... -_-

To be fair I don't think I've really heard the term since the 90s when I was into punk/ska music.

Hell I heard a CNN anchor try to say it about the Charlotte protests and totally butcher it.

They haven't been very prominent in the US because well everyone thought we all agreed fascism was bad.
 
If someone posts a video by an outspoken bigot I'm gonna call them out for it. And I wasn't even the one asking for a summary, just responding to his nonsense defensive post about how he shouldn't need to post a summary for a 45 minute video from a piece of shit.

The fact that you think antifa and the alt-right are equal in terms of deadly violence in America is funny though considering last weekend.

He shouldn't. It's not on him to post a summary. You calling Shapiro a POS doesn't change the fact that you are doing nothing to refute the points he brings up in the video and is, in fact, keeping the conversation going while adding no content besides calling him names, but I digress.

Antifa and the alt right are certainly on equal terms IMO. Last weekend doesn't magically erase all the violence I have seen from antifa over these past months.
 
He shouldn't. It's not on him to post a summary. You calling Shapiro a POS doesn't change the fact that you are doing nothing to refute the points he brings up in the video and is, in fact, keeping the conversation going while adding no content besides calling him names, but I digress.

Antifa and the alt right are certainly on equal terms IMO. Last weekend doesn't magically erase all the violence I have seen from antifa over these past months.
Last week demonstrated that only one of those groups is gonna kill you in your hypothetical and it's not gonna be antifa.

Edit: and that's not even getting in to the idealogical differences lol
 
Are people really pretending Ben Shapiro should be listened to?

If someone wants to base an argument on 2 girls one cup as a treatise on capitalism are we supposed to take them seriously?
 
Top Bottom