I have a bunch of thoughts, but I’ll give just one: In order for “anti-fascism” to make sense as a guiding principle, we would need some kind of agreement about what fascism is and what alternative we’re proposing. Because without a solid definition of what we’re aiming for or why, we risk becoming ineffective and alienating a ton of people. Without putting too fine a point on it, organizations that call themselves antifa / anti-fascist generally attract a lot of far-leftists, communists, and anarchists, which scares off most people. There also are tends to be a lot of scope creep (e.g. saying that all cops are fascist bastards, or labelling center-right politicians like Ronald Reagan as fascists).
That’s why I think it’s generally better to guide yourself based on what you support rather than what you oppose. E.G. if you’re worried about rule of law, you should directly advocate for rule of law. If you’re worried about populist movements causing worse governance by taking power away from knowledgeable experts, then you should directly advocate for more meritocracy in government staffing decisions.
I realize that those are both wonky things to focus on, but that’s kind of the point. EA’s comparative advantage is that we’re a small group of intelligent, committed people. We can accomplish a lot of things in the boring world of procedures, outside the limelight. When it comes to anti-fascist street actions / mutual aid, even if those tactics work (which I’m skeptical they do), EAs simply don’t have the numbers for it.
I have a bunch of thoughts, but I’ll give just one: In order for “anti-fascism” to make sense as a guiding principle, we would need some kind of agreement about what fascism is and what alternative we’re proposing. Because without a solid definition of what we’re aiming for or why, we risk becoming ineffective and alienating a ton of people. Without putting too fine a point on it, organizations that call themselves antifa / anti-fascist generally attract a lot of far-leftists, communists, and anarchists, which scares off most people. There also are tends to be a lot of scope creep (e.g. saying that all cops are fascist bastards, or labelling center-right politicians like Ronald Reagan as fascists).
That’s why I think it’s generally better to guide yourself based on what you support rather than what you oppose. E.G. if you’re worried about rule of law, you should directly advocate for rule of law. If you’re worried about populist movements causing worse governance by taking power away from knowledgeable experts, then you should directly advocate for more meritocracy in government staffing decisions.
I realize that those are both wonky things to focus on, but that’s kind of the point. EA’s comparative advantage is that we’re a small group of intelligent, committed people. We can accomplish a lot of things in the boring world of procedures, outside the limelight. When it comes to anti-fascist street actions / mutual aid, even if those tactics work (which I’m skeptical they do), EAs simply don’t have the numbers for it.