Source: Wikimedia Commons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antifa_logo.jpg).
Writing about Antifa is incredibly difficult. Writing about it well, anyway. But the topic came up at the DSA’s Chicago regional preconvention meeting in a group discussion on how to fight the far right. The relationship between fascism and Trumpism was a related topic of discussion.
I’ll set that latter topic aside, since I’ve already addressed it on this blog. But that leaves us with Antifa. What is it? Has it succeeded? What are its limits? Is it useful to leftist organizing?
What is Antifa?
Antifa is less a group than a (very) loose collection of groups and individuals fighting what they call ‘fascism.’ It includes everything from older groups to newer ones constantly forming or in a state of flux.
I won’t quibble too much about language. But presumably readers are well aware that I don’t think most of what Antifa fights is fascism. Some is. Most of what they’re fighting is racism, white supremacism, and/or right-wing identitarianism. Again, I won’t quibble. I don’t like the things they’re fighting against, and it’s important to address these issues. The semantic issue is less important.
There’s also the origin of the term ‘antifa’, which is short for ‘anti-fascism.’ I’ve long thought that the term came about because it’s close to ‘intifada,’ the name for the Palestinian uprisings against Israeli occupation. Then again, no one I’ve said this to has thought there was any merit at all to the idea. So, maybe not. What we know is that the contemporary US use of the name came from the Internet at some point in the early-mid 2000s. Non-American groups were probably using the name earlier.
Its History
Only a brief word here. Antifa folks trace their own history from anti-fascist movements organizing around Franco, Hitler, and Mussolini to the leftist punk tradition of the late 1980s. That’s perhaps a bit lofty, but the connection to anarchism and direct action is much more defensible and obvious. My own familiarity with anarchist direct action methods is in the tenants union and solidarity network space.
While there’s an obvious connection, it’s worth pointing out that anarchist direct action is much more central to organizing with, say, solidarity networks than it is to Antifa. But the connection is clearly there.
Mark Bray’s book Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook is useful for further study of these issues. I’d highly recommend it. What Bray emphasizes that the mainstream press doesn’t is Antifa’s diversity of tactics and its connection to other forms of popular organizing.
Its Successes
In popular American culture, Antifa’s successes comes in the realm of no-platforming and isolated incidents of street fighting. On the no-platforming front, the biggest examples people give are those of Charles Murray and Milo Yiannopoulos.
Murray and Milo were invited, in separate incidents, to speak on college campuses. Milo was scheduled to speak at UC-Berkeley, though his speech was disrupted with raucous protests. Protesters prevented Murray’s speaking event at Middlebury College, and other colleges also canceled Murray events.
In terms of aftermath, Murray is still a famous political scientist and author at the American Enterprise Institute. Milo is now disgraced due to a scandal over perceived advocacy of child sex. As best I can tell, his downfall is largely unrelated to the no-platforming incidents. However, the no-platforming was successful insofar as it prevented Milo from releasing the names of undocumented immigrants, which he threatened to do.
On the street fighting front, the incident I’m referring to is the infamous punching of Richard Spencer. It’s a fun video. I re-watch it periodically. In terms of result, the incident seems to have embarrassed and discredited Spencer with far right groups.
Evaluation
There’s some good work here. A world where people like Milo and Spencer have fallen from power or influence is a better world.
But evaluating these incidents in detail is somewhat tricky for a few reasons. One, the extent to which Antifa is responsible for the no-platforming successes really depends on your definition of ‘Antifa.’ The Berkeley protests against Milo involved a broad coalition of groups, including students, groups like By Any Means Necessary that may or may not be Antifa, and so on. There are also groups like Redneck Revolt that appear to be in the camp, even though they disavow the label. Antifa groups clearly played at least a supporting role.
Two, the net impact of these events is ambiguous. Did no-platforming Milo take him off the stage, or did it lead to Trump’s ‘free speech’ executive order? Did punching Richard Spencer spur violence against the left anywhere else, or in some other domain? It’s hard to say.
Three, and I’ll say far more about this below, the successes tend to be against relatively small group that aren’t yet very powerful.
Other Methods and Successes
I think there are other areas where Antifa groups have met with clear success. One is the supporting role these groups played in the anti-racist Charlottesville counter-protests. Cornel West, for one, credited them with protecting other counter-protesters.
Bray, in his book I recommended above, documents a second area. Antifa often functions as a private investigative unit, tracking and documenting the movements of far right elements. It’s the sort of work the Southern Poverty Law Center has done for years. And I’m sure they appreciate the help.
A point worth raising is that to some degree, Antifa has had some marketing troubles. Bray points out that much of the work they do is non-violent. And that even some of their successes come despite violence, not because of it.
But that’s an open question.
Its Limitations
I think there are two key limits to Antifa’s success, and they revolve around scope.
One, Antifa’s promoters tend to pad the list of wins. It’s common for people to include on the list things that had little or nothing to do with the group. My favorite example of this is the fall of the Traditional Worker Party, which I discussed in an earlier post. This group fell apart, as far as I can tell, entirely as a result of an internal scandal. No outside group appears to have been involved. Even in the case of Milo, his fall was due as much to the fact that he was a gay man with a homophobic audience as it was due to the no-platforming incidents.
Two, Antifa’s structure and methods appear best suited to rising elements of the far right that are still relatively small and marginal. These are good methods for fighting figures before they become powerful. And they seem successful in preventing people from becoming powerful. But there’s not much reason to think they’d work on far right groups that are already powerful, or, much more yet, central to American power.
ICE and the Police
One big question is whether the things Antifa is doing translate to these larger and more entrenched forces, such as ICE and the police. That’s questionable, and my tentative answer is ‘probably not.’ De-arresting works in certain rare cases, but conditions have to be just right. Punching police officers in the face is almost always a bad idea.
There are plenty of examples of successful anti-ICE organizing. The Occupy ICE movement had some successes. Pro-immigrant groups have done a ton of great work, including here in Iowa. But this organizing is usually done by Latinx activists and pro-immigrant activists. Not by Antifa.
Morality and Strategy
Morality isn’t unrelated to politics, but neither should it be central. I’m not especially interested in debating the moral legitimacy of violence or no-platforming. What I’m interested in is what works at building working-class power and a broad coalition of the dispossessed.
Nathan J. Robinson of Current Affairs argues persuasively that what’s important in considering Antifa success and failure is strategic concerns, not moral concerns. For any given action, does it help the fight against white supremacism or does it hurt the fight? What are the benefits and harms to the left of engaging in no-platforming? Does it help take a harmful view off the table? And, even if it does so, does it have any negative impact, such as bolstering the university system’s neoliberal turn?
I’m not sure how to answer these questions in all cases, but I’m pretty sure they’re the right questions. And, branching out from this, if no-platforming and doxxing the far right is the correct solution, there’s a need to think about how to mitigate any negative consequences. Did, for example, the punching of Richard Spencer lead to the Unite the Right march in Charlottesville? And, if it did, what can leftists do to prevent these things from happening again? Does right-wing backlash mostly impact black organizers? And, if so, what can leftists do to prevent these things from happening again?
Where Do We Go From Here?
On the whole, I think pro-immigrant organizers are doing some of the best work on countering white supremacism, especially its deeper institutional connections. Antifa has had far more success in preventing more marginal figures of the far right from gaining more power.
And that’s great. But it’s the pro-immigrant organizers who are challenging elements of white supremacism already entrenched in existing institutions of power. That’s the bigger project, and I think it’s the more challenging one.
Attempt at Conclusions on Antifa
If I’m correct in what I say above, I see a few tentative conclusions.
1. Antifa grew out of anti-racist and anti-white supremacist movements, at least in its American form.
2. Its main successes come through taking action to prevent small and marginal far right groups from becoming more powerful.
3. It uses primarily non-violent methods, but it’s best known for its violent methods.
4. Its successes come mostly through building coalitions with larger groups.
5. Its methods probably won’t work on more powerful groups like ICE and the police.
6. Liberal groups are wrong to dismiss its successes, but supporters are wrong to exaggerate the scope or significance of those successes.
