Towards a Critique of Antifascism

Towards a Critique of Antifascism

From Medium by Ausonia Calabrese

Before anything further is said, I must stress the fact that this is a critique coming from within the antifascist tradition. It is a self-appraisal of our discursive boundaries, to point (or beckon) towards that which we cannot speak of through the languages we have wrought for ourselves.

The critique hinges on the symbolic relationship of “antifascism” to “fascism,” which, seemingly, is that of negation. Negation is the defining factor of anarchy: it is a negation of arkhe. Likewise, it is the defining factor of antifascism: it is a negation of fascism. But the relationship of the anarchist to the arkhe is much different from the relationship of the antifascist to fascism.

“Anarchy” — as I have discussed many times before — is produced by adding a negative prefix, “a(n)”, to the Greek word arkhe, which means a superior or commanding principle. Likewise, “antifascism” is produced by adding a negative prefix, “anti” to the English word “fascism,” to denote the movement which opposes itself to fascism. If this seems obvious, you are not incorrect. But the description is warranted, for the distinction here is subtle. In the former, the negation is not active but passive. It denotes a relationship of lack, i.e., the lack of a commanding principle. Thus why “anarchy” is sometimes used to define particular social relationships, that is, those social relationships which come about that lack a State. In the latter, the negation is active. It denotes an element which is positively opposed to fascism.

Active negation is, in a sense, a reification and intensification of passive negation. Like “antitheist” implies “atheist”, the “antifascist” implies both a hypothetical negative, lack-based element (perhaps termed “afascism”) and a positive, active component. And this positive, active component is where antifascism as a material movement lies. It is the confrontation of fascist groups on the streets, “boots on the ground” so to speak. The derivation of a positive aspect from a negative aspect is the Achilles’ heel of antifascism. With anarchy, or another passive-negation, there is no positive aspect inherently implied. The lack of something does not necessarily imply the presence of something else. It leaves questions unanswered, ambiguous, and open-ended, such that it appeals to a wide-breadth of situations and configurations. With antifascism arises a positive movement, that necessarily moves against fascism, and seeks to crush it. The death knell is made in the actual, material lack of fascism.

The antifascist must chain herself to her enemy: the strictures of the movement, which construct it, render it intelligible, and make meaning within it, are bound to that which it negates. What do antifascist groups do when Nazis are run out of town? They disband, fall back — until the next confrontation is called. Everything produced under the mantle of antifascism — actions, events, situations — are reliant on fascism for their existence. In that sense, antifascism is the inferior element, for it has only a dependent, conditional existence. Thus the constant, unending media spectacle of the cat-and-mouse games of black blocs facing off against rightist militants. It is always the antifascists reacting to and responding to fascism: when have antifascists convened except when the threat of fascists loom overhead?

Antifascist groups cannot win spaces, because they cease to be truly antifascist without the presence of fascists: when they do, they have become something else entirely. And as anarchists, we must move to win spaces away from the power of the State, of governance — such is the anarchist project in simple terms. This, however, is a function antifascism cannot provide alone.
Again, it must be stressed that this is a critique coming from inside the antifascist movement. This critique is nonmoral, and is by no means a rejection of antifascism or its tactics. In short, my critique is that antifascism fails to go far enough. It is by its very nature incomplete. It succeeds in pushing back fascist scum, but fails to do more than that.

In my view, it would be fruitful to work towards the expansion, elaboration, and transformation of antifascism into something with its own independent existence, that antifascism as we know it could be subsumed into. This is not to call for a movement in the traditional sense, but a proliferation of antifascist tactics transformed into a positive offensive term, not merely a reactive defensive term.

There are 9 Comments

"In short, my critique is that antifascism fails to go far enough."
with all due respect, and as an instinctive (as opposed to an ideological or organizational) antifascist, i have to say that you've got it wrong here. as people most often constrained by binary polarities, antifascists will always end up tolerating what to principled anarchists, should never be tolerated -- to wit: hierarchical decision making, militarized tactics, collaboration with any scumbag (tankies for example) who's also a self-identified antifascist. antifascism doesn't "fail"; it simply is incapable of succeeding.

It's just universalist rubbish at the end of the day that allows liberals and non anarchists to look radical and have something to unite against. Anti-authoritarianism already covers anti-fascism. What anti-fascism enables is liberals and other structural authoritarians to forget that they themselves are also authoritarians. This is not even to mention authoritarian leftists who get to fly that silly flag as well with their hammer and sickle.

Again, "Ausonia" is having this pretty bad, misinformed hot take on their subjects. "An-" in "anarchism" is not a negative prefix, but one that is expressing an ABSENCE, or "without rulers/governors/authorities". It is similar to this other Greek word "acratia", which means "without power/authorities".

"Anti-" is the negative prefix.

Stopped reading there, sorry. Next time stop being a hot-blooded jerk and examine your claims before posting.

If we are to use the author's logic to interpret their own pseudonym, then they would be the passive absence of United States citizens or of Frank Lloyd Wright's notions of architecture, landscape and urban planning?

What a silly goose.

Though if you google the name "Ausonia" first result was a brand of menstrual pads.

"In the former, the negation is not active but passive. It denotes a relationship of lack, i.e., the lack of a commanding principle. Thus why “anarchy” is sometimes used to define particular social relationships, that is, those social relationships which come about that lack a State. In the latter, the negation is active. It denotes an element which is positively opposed to fascism."

--the essay you are supposedly responding to

The prefix ἀν- expresses a lack, yes, as I discussed at length in this very essay. In the sense that it expresses a lack it expresses a negation of the term before it (cognate to the English un-) which makes it linguistically negative, defined by what it is not. The relationship of anarkhos to arkhos is negation.

It's embarrassing to dismiss whole essays only a couple of sentences in, let alone by repeating points made by the author, while not even fully understanding the topic you're talking about.

unlike rubbing alcohol, there's definitely no shortage of embarrassment these days.

As Bordiga once said "Antifascism is the worst product of fascism". Then and now it amounts to nothing more than building coalitions with enemies against the greater evil to defend the same "democratic plurality" that will later condemn us to jail and execution. Never forget that the three arrows come from the same social-democratic quiver that killed the Spartakist Revolt and the Bavarian Republic in defense of the bourgeoisie.

Add new comment