The Anti-fascist movement—often abbreviated as Antifa—has been around since fascists first came to power in the early 1900s. But more recently, beginning with the election of President Donald Trump, Antifa has gained a foothold in American political discourse that it hasn’t held in almost a century. This is particularly true on college campuses, where anti-fascists have used their famous “direct-action strategy” (Bray, xiv) to prevent Far Right speakers from erasing the existence of marginalized students. With colleges beginning to reopen for fall semester, it’s important for us to revisit why Antifa is an indispensible organization in the fight against violent speech on campuses, as well as in the broader war to dismantle systems of oppression.
In his prescient tour de force, Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, Rutgers University history professor Mark Bray sets out to define “Antifa,” and to defend the confrontational tactics that have made the group infamous in Far Right circles. With all the misconceptions about anti-fascism, it’s crucial for someone like Bray to clarify what it’s all about by giving us an “insider’s look at the movement…” (Bray, fourth cover). Thankfully, he provides multiple definitions of it in the introduction.
First, Bray defines “anti-fascism” as the antithesis of the classical liberal maxim: “I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (Bray, xv). Several sentences later, he defines it as “an illiberal politics of social revolution applied to fighting the Far Right, not only literal fascists” (Bray, xv). On the next page, he defines it as “simply one of a number of manifestations of revolutionary socialist politics (broadly construed)” (Bray, xvi). On the next page, he defines it as “a solitary component of a larger legacy of resistance to white supremacy in all its forms” (Bray, xvii). Soon after, he defines it as “an argument about the historical continuity between different eras of far-right violence and the many forms of self-defense that it has necessitated across the globe over the past century” (Bray, xix).
Some might claim that it’s ill-advised for Bray to define “anti-fascism” in so many different ways. Others might even argue that it cheapens the lived experiences of those who resisted explicitly fascist regimes. However, as Bray astutely points out, anti-fascism isn’t just about fighting fascism; it’s about fighting all forms of domination, and the systems that uphold them (Bray, xxiv). Domination is always wrong, and folx need to have access to the right tools to fight against it in every context. Bray’s generous assortment of definitions provide anti-fascists the freedom to choose whichever one fits the particular form of domination that afflicts them at any given time—whether it be Nazi Gestapo or the TERF from your yoga class.
Bray presents a robust defense of today’s anti-fascists by focusing acutely on the battle for college campuses. He starts by conceding that anti-fascists preventing speakers from speaking does, in fact, infringe on the speaker’s freedom of speech. But he reminds us that “this infringement is justified for its role in the political struggle against fascism” (Bray, pg.153). It is this appeal to the political struggle that explains why it is laudable for anti-fascist college students to counter the Far Right by utilizing “direct-action” strategies—like hurling molotov cocktails at police for protecting a Breitbart columnist, hospitalizing a professor for escorting a visiting conservative sociologist to his speaking event, or sending death threats to a white postgrad for having dreadlocks. You’ll hear a lot of Fox-News-types characterize these actions as being “violent,” but they are only violent insofar as they prevent Far Right figures from perpetuating their discursive violence. In other words, “Antifa act out of collective self-defense” (Bray, xvi).
It’s also imperative for us to remember that the fight against Fascism and the Far Right is a multi-generational struggle. As the Haitian anthropologist Michel-Rolph Trouillot eloquently describes it “The past—or more accurately, pastness—is a position. Thus in no way can we identify the past as the past” (Bray, xii). In this vein, if we look beyond the trans-exclusionary worldviews of our grandfathers, we can admire the bravery it took for many of them to risk their (admittedly cis) bodies on the beaches of Normxndy and in the fields of the Rhineland to defend the world against Hitler’s genocidal fascism. Risking our own bodies by smashing the windows of the Student Union when Ben Shapiro comes to campus, and leaving the shards for the custodians to clean up, is simply the continuation of Antifa’s rich and honorable past(ness).
Bray goes on to problematize the idea, originally articulated by the white-cishet-male philosopher John Stuart Mill, that hearing arguments you disagree with strengthens your ability to refute them, and even solidifies your reasons for holding your own beliefs (Love, pg. 64). This is racist. Or as Bray puts it, it “suggests…presenting pro- and anti- slavery perspectives…as equally legitimate moral positions…” (Bray, pg.160). Mill, from his position of privilege, is unable to acknowledge marginalized folx who are rendered invisible every day on American university campuses. The outrage of BIPOC students when a historian deleteriously argues against affirmative action; the indignation of nonbinary students when a biologist recklessly discusses the tired concept of biological sex; the anguish of female-identifying students when an economist violently questions the gender-wage gap—none of this dehumxnization seems to concern Mill or his contemporary acolytes. They callously fail to recognize how bigoted it is to suggest that minoritized students at elite colleges should be capable of dealing with unpleasant figures speaking on their campus. They even have the audacity to assume that some minoritized students might actually want to hear, evaluate, and question these controversial views themselves—a quintessentially white supremacist idea, to be sure.
In response to Bray’s trenchant comparison of liberals to slavery apologists, some political moderates might ask what their place is in all this. A presumptuous Karen, for instance, might interrupt your post-resistance stroll through Whole Foods to say “I’m totally against fascism and racism, but I think free speech is important. What can I do to be an ally?” Bray masterfully preempts this weaponization of white womxn tears, and removes any uncertainty that might have remained with a rhetorical coup de grace: “the question is not about establishing a neutral line beyond which right-wing politics cannot cross, but about entirely transforming society by tearing down oppression in all its forms” (Bray, pg.156).
Essentially, you’re either on board with total revolution, or you’re with the Einsatzgruppen. There’s no space for moderation when it comes to fighting systems of oppression, because to moderately dismantle an oppressive system is oxymoronic. Switzerland played it moderate during World War II, and now their country has devolved into a cesspool of noxious whiteness. We don’t have to be like Switzerland. There is another way; a better way.
The Antifa movement is not just necessary for countering President Trump and for preventing the verbal violence perpetrated by Far Right speakers on college campuses. It is also a crucial movement for us to liberate ourselves from the bondage of capitalism; to throw off the binds of white supremacy; to break the chains of hetero-normativity; and to bring about a classless, genderless, whitenessless, and therefore conflictless society where minoritized folx and their allies finally get to share the living space they’ve been deprived of for so long.
Citations
- Love, Nancy. Dogmas and Dreams: A Reader in Modern Political Ideologies. Congressional Quarterly Press, 2011.
- Bray, Mark. Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook. Melville House Publishing, 2017.
Author’s note: I wrote this satirical essay for one of my classes. It’s not supposed to be satirical, but my professor called my favorite philosopher (John Stuart Mill) a “self satisfied misogynist.” I couldn’t let that stand.
14 comments
Agreed!
Antifa is Fascist. It uses their tactics. In Germany it is allegedly implicated in political murder of those it as a group does not agree with. They are the new brown shirts who think like the cultural revolutionaries of Mao. There is no excuse for these haters. As individuals none of us are equal and that is because we are diverse. That is how we got here in the best civilisation to date. Shoving every one into one mold of behaviour is worse than communism where there was ‘to each their own reward’ for whatever input into society one laboured for. The Antifa want totalitarian conformity. There was more freedom in National Socialist Germany, which I would not want as a political system ever. Their bad taste in music for one, banning jazz is a crime in itself. Antifa is there to destroy the very society which allowed them breathing space to begin with. Shades and blood of the Weimar Republik.
The whole of all “movements” on college campuses is bound to the base of Hegelian doctrine, especially that doctrine concocted by the Young and Younger Hegelians. The whole of all of the current riots in America is based upon war in antithesis.
Communists will fund and promote war in antithesis as they are now doing in America. These wars are not intended to be won. Their intent is to bring about public hatred of those warring. Little do those warring understand that they are the sacrificial lambs being led to the slaughter. The Communists have them war and continue to escalate that war until it becomes serious and innocent citizens become the targets of lethal aggression.
Communists move in to “save the day”, by eliminating through military intervention, those very people they paid and set to war in antithesis. Yes the communists will line every one of them against a wall and shoot them all. This is what makes the communists appear to be hero’s for the people.. It is the intention of the communists to eliminate all Antifa and BLM…. every single one of them…
This is why communists fund these rioters and refer to them as useful idiots. Little do the rioters understand that they will be eliminated by the communists. While they think they are fighting for a cause, they are actually signing their own death warrant. All communism starts with mass murder and if America is turned into a communist nation lead by the Democrat party, it will start the same way.
This is why people such as Alexandar Vindman are chosen. They are filled with deception and pumped up with sunshine and sent in a direction to war in antithesis. He together with Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff were chosen to war in anti thesis against the standing president of America. Not because they would ever win. but because they would bring out into the open all of those who would be potential targets of the incoming Communist party. Everyone who sided with or voted for the Democrat impeachment, are potential targets for the Communists to eliminate, that includes media figures as well … ALL of them will be ordered executed.
The Communists now know who they can count upon as useful idiots to bring them to power and later once in power, who they need to eliminate.
If people in the media and within the Democrat/Communist party and within BLM and Antifa, don’t wake up to how they are being used by the communists, then they will all suffer their demise within 12-18 months time, when the mass executions start. The communist party can ill afford to have any of them remain, therefore they will eliminate them all. This is how communists rule using fear….. Just ask a Chinese citizen… Just look at their comments concerning corona virus…. especially the medical people…. and how many times they use the english phrase … “get or be dead or died”
Very insightful and confirmed by interviews of Soviet era defector Yuri Beznimov who said he saw a file that all thw useful idiot professors he was grooming as agitators in India were marked for execution. I have seen this on Twitter as well where the hard core Marxist Leninists are direct ahout how the woke crowd are useful idiots and they urge their own people to be sober and above the fray.
I lolled. And then I did it again. I think I may be problematic.
I sympathize in general with people who are against the Fake Left and the people who use Radical Chic to be upwardly-mobile in academia. I think some of them actually go into politics so that they can bully and dominate others. I would, however, caution you against throwing the baby out with the bathwater. These people do not speak for or represent all Leftists anywhere except in their own minds. I am also against the NeoLiberals who I think brought us Donald Trump by selling out the working class. I’m still an Anarchist. I still oppose Fascism and Fascist tendencies in society. I believe that we have to make our society more egalitarian if we are ever going to solve our common problems. Objecting to abuse doesn’t have to be an apology for the other side. Let Dave Rubin do that.
I got a good laugh out of “the bravery it took for many of them to risk their (admittedly cis) bodies” on “Normxndy.”
Gratzi. Glad there are some who still value rationality with the great courage it requires to stand up to groups of raving lunatics.
Brilliant! I’m curious: How did your prof respond to this?
“It is also crucial movement for us to liberate ourselves from the bondage of capitalism; to throw off the binds of white supremacy; to break the chains of hetero-normativity; and to bring about a classless, genderless, whitenessless, and therefore conflictless society where minoritized folx and their allies finally get to share the living space they’ve been deprived of for so long.”
This quote is key. Because this seems to be the heart and soul of critical social justice.
My interpretation of social justice is their main concern is culture. When they say “systamic oppression” they really mean “Cultural/societal oppression.” They seem to believe the existence of a cultural perspective, cultural norms, cultural preferences, cultural values is what oppression is. Their goal seems to be to dismantle, disrupt, erase culture.
But, they don’t seem to consider if they remove “white supremacy” and “hetero-noramtivity” in Western culture, this won’t remove the “problem” of cultural norms and preference. It will just replace one culture with another. They’re not opposed to “white culture” in particular, but against all cultural norms/preference/values.
If they dismantle “white supremacy”, they won’t remove their fundamental enemy which is cultural values/preference/perspective. It is impossible for social justice to create the valueless, culture(less) society they seem to want to create.
I think us who are opposed to critical social justice, should point this out to minorities who support BLM and social justice in general.
Black Americans, who support BLM, seem to think social justice is only about fighting “white supremacy.” When, in reality its ideaology is opposed to all cultural norms/values. Which includes black cultural norms/values.
Black males especially look like an easy target of criticism for social justice ideology. They don’t target black males but they would have a hay day if they ever did.
I mean, within Black society itself, there are norms and values like in any society. You could easily apply social justice ideology to black society, and say talk about “Black male supremacy” or whatever.
I think a good argument, would be to explain to Black Americans that you like this ideology when it criticizes white people, but you won’t like it when it is switched on you which can easily be done. If you think it is bull shit when applied to your culture maybe you should reconsider how legitimate their criticisms of white Americans are.
Hey Samuel. Enjoyed reading your thoughts. They are logical. However, I think you would be wasting your time and energy to explain the obvious (the system will ultimately be used against them!) because ‘they don’t see it” (exactly as you wrote) History is replete with examples of laws/ideas peopled championed ultimately biting them in the ass.
People never learn. Sometimes learning doesn’t occur because too much time elapses between action and consequence. There are other reasons as well.
Here’s an example: Anthony Weiner (former NY congressman) passionately advocated for legal protections for chidlren/ harsh criminal laws against internet predators.
Shock of all shocks!!…Several years after the laws passed, Weiner (such a punable name) got caught sending dic pics to an underage age female in Alabama?-some southern state. Weiner was actually punished (he must have angered someone in a position of power) and he was placed on the sex offender registry. Clearly a schadenfreude moment for many.
How about Mao’s gang of four-Mao’s wife was executed. Oh…who else. Leon Trotsky, cohort of Lenin, was hated by Stalin. Trotsky developed a variant of communism called Trotskyism. Stalin ordered Trotsky’s assassination. The killing was especially bloody and gruesome. There are so may more. Mussolini was executed by firing squad. Read history.
Sadly for the non-CSJT people, the proponents of CSJT think “things will be different this time”. “We know how to do it right, they didn’t”
It’s all feelings masquerading as fact, not reason. Facism as liberation. The feelings underlying their ideas really consist of: anger, resentment, and envy. The “I want what they have” mindset, not unlike an unruly two year old. Does one successfully reason with a two year old? I didn’t, nor would I ever. That’s ineffective.
Hopefully, some of these people will grow out of their ideas (remember the human brain is not fully matured until age 25), but the others will end up being old, angry hippies who mostly teach in universities and enter government.
Systems go back into equilibrium, (see election Richard Nixon and chaotic 1960s). However, each iteration typically permanently changes the next in some way.
Cal, quite good, esp. on ” The feelings underlying their ideas really consist of: anger, resentment, and envy.”
I’ll just add, consider class snobbery, as stoked by esp. by the Beautiful People, and swallowed with glee by the Upper-middle class, esp. its clerisy segment.
Thoughtful essays on these matters include those by Archdruid J.M. Greer, here, and here.
Also, Julius Krein, here.
Also, alt-Right blogger Whiskey in 2012, here.
Nice work! I like that James Lindsay is including new writers on this site.
I second this!