There is a huge overlap between people who would participate in Antifa and Anarchists, so you can imagine the problems getting a structured organization setup and keeping on task and purpose.

[–] HardNut@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm sure that's part of it. Antifa is definitely not well structured, and anarchists could probably be opposed to any official organization.

Let me put it this way, the post talks about a journalist who investigates antifa, which the op of this comment chain mocked because they're not an organization. But, this is an argument of semantics, and the post didn't use that word to begin with. Regardless of what you call antifa, he's trying to investigate and see what they're about.

It's a very dishonest way to deride people. If you don't mind me asking, if you don't think the word organization is appropriate, what's better? I mean I just say group, can't really be wrong going that general but it also doesn't say much. Like, when you said "people who participate in Antifa...", what type of thing are those people participating in?

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's more of a cause or a movement than an organization. I guess I don't know why that should be difficult to understand.

[–] HardNut@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I think you missed the point.

[–] Narauko@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Organizations do not necessarily require structure, association is a synonym for a reason. Decentralized organizations and associations are a thing. Decentralized workers solidarity movements and co-op/community strengthening initiatives can be/are "organizing" even if no one is in charge. You don't need to be a member of a union or an official neighborhood association to be part of an organization, there just needs to be general or vague common intention among a group and something of a shared identity. You might not get as much done a fast when not structurally organized, but you also don't not exist if your not a card carrying member. I don't understand the desire to divorce Antifa from being an organization or even existing. It's like saying that the Deadheads aren't a real thing because no one was directing the vast majority of fans who packed up and followed the band across the country.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Oh so now you are arguing that deadheads were an organization too? Really? In what universe?

[–] Narauko@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I haven't argued anything before that post, but this conversation about the semantics of the word organization means is interesting to me. To answer your question, I'd say Yes? Deadheads were a group of people associating with each other under common interest and intent. They didn't particularly have leaders or any hierarchical structure, but they gathered in locations of common interest (concert venues and the surrounding local) based solely on individual discussion and desire, participated in the event alongside and with the group, and almost everyone participating identified as a deadhead. I really don't understand the problem with them falling under the edge of the umbrella of the term organization.

They were an organization when viewed as an association or society: in this case a voluntary association of individuals for common ends. Deadheads were a distinct subculture in and of themselves, and I don't understand in what universe that wouldn't qualify. Keeping with the musician fandom, I'd say the same for the Juggalo's. Being on the outer edge of the Venn diagram is still part of the whole picture.