Here are my thoughts: • Authoritarianism is a real risk. I think this has been clear for a while, but I’ve updated upwards multiple times. • I agree that it’s possible to analyse the issue of fascism in a non-partisan way. Unfortunately, most ‘anti-fascist’ work focuses on only one side of the political spectrum. I think this is a mistake: ‘anti-facist activists’ are often just as fascist as anyone on the right and it’s quite plausible that if the right loses the next election, then instead of aiming to restore frayed norms and institutions, folks on the left decide that the only option is to fight fire with fire. This is a threat in and of itself, but it would also increase the ability of the right to lean more in this direction if they win power again. • The mutual aid suggestion comes of as really strange to me. The argument for mutual aid as a way of building the EA community feels much stronger than the argument of engaging in mutual aid as a way to fight fascism. This is especially true if you believe fascism is an urgent threat here and now rather than a possibility that we need to prepare for in case it happens at some distant, undefined point in the future. • “Mass deportion” really feels like a distinct question from facism—it’s not really fascism if the government is just enforcing standard immigration laws and there are proper procedural safeguards; on the other hand, even small scale deportations can be legitimately linked to fascism if they’re being leveraged cynically to chill speech. The raw numbers aren’t the active ingredient or determining factor.
I believe that the assertion that “anti-fascists” are “often just as fascist” as the right and will engage in the same behaviour if given power is factually untrue. While there are loud groups of authoritarian communists (tankies) on the left which could be arguably described as fascist, these are a fringe group that are unlikely to get anywhere near the levers of power. Anti-fascists are a wide coalition consisting of a wide array of political views.
I do not think that if the right loses the next election, that the left would be equally fascist. The current adminisatration flooded mineapolis with poorly trained thugs who made it unsafe to go outside as a non-white person. I do not believe that a President AOC or whoever will take actions of equivalent damage.
Thanks, that’s useful. I mostly agree with you, and mistakenly read the second bullet point as saying “work that opposes fascism should come from all sides of the political spectrum”, which is something I agree with. I think the OP somewhat assumed that opposing fascism will look like ‘work with your local anti-fascist network’, but I expect much of it could look more like ‘militarising Europe’ (something the political left would typically oppose).
A lot of these claims are subtly different from the ones I made (not claiming that you were necessarily asserting that I agreed with them).
Engage in the same behaviour if given power is factually untrue
I wouldn’t endorse this statement either. Left and right fascism express themselves differently. So I definitely wouldn’t predict the ‘same behaviour’.
Anti-fascists are a wide coalition consisting of a wide array of political views
There is a wide coalition against facism, but they don’t call themselves antifa. It’s a much narrower group that adopts that label.
I do not think that if the right loses the next election, that the left would be equally fascist
I don’t expect that either. But they may still ‘lock-in’ some of the backsliding which would become the new standard from which behaviour is measured, enabling continued escalation from there.
The claim I made was “‘anti-facist activists’ are often just as fascist as anyone on the right” and I believe that’s true. The impact of an election depends on the choices of a much broader set of people.
The current adminisatration flooded mineapolis with poorly trained thugs who made it unsafe to go outside as a non-white person. I do not believe that a President AOC or whoever will take actions of equivalent damage.
The damage that an action causes in the long-term has relatively little correlation with the damage that an action causes in the short-term. I’m not claiming ‘equivalently damaging short-term effects’.
Thanks for posting this, it made me think.
Here are my thoughts:
• Authoritarianism is a real risk. I think this has been clear for a while, but I’ve updated upwards multiple times.
• I agree that it’s possible to analyse the issue of fascism in a non-partisan way. Unfortunately, most ‘anti-fascist’ work focuses on only one side of the political spectrum. I think this is a mistake: ‘anti-facist activists’ are often just as fascist as anyone on the right and it’s quite plausible that if the right loses the next election, then instead of aiming to restore frayed norms and institutions, folks on the left decide that the only option is to fight fire with fire. This is a threat in and of itself, but it would also increase the ability of the right to lean more in this direction if they win power again.
• The mutual aid suggestion comes of as really strange to me. The argument for mutual aid as a way of building the EA community feels much stronger than the argument of engaging in mutual aid as a way to fight fascism. This is especially true if you believe fascism is an urgent threat here and now rather than a possibility that we need to prepare for in case it happens at some distant, undefined point in the future.
• “Mass deportion” really feels like a distinct question from facism—it’s not really fascism if the government is just enforcing standard immigration laws and there are proper procedural safeguards; on the other hand, even small scale deportations can be legitimately linked to fascism if they’re being leveraged cynically to chill speech. The raw numbers aren’t the active ingredient or determining factor.
I’m curious to understand better where people disagree with this comment.
I believe that the assertion that “anti-fascists” are “often just as fascist” as the right and will engage in the same behaviour if given power is factually untrue. While there are loud groups of authoritarian communists (tankies) on the left which could be arguably described as fascist, these are a fringe group that are unlikely to get anywhere near the levers of power. Anti-fascists are a wide coalition consisting of a wide array of political views.
I do not think that if the right loses the next election, that the left would be equally fascist. The current adminisatration flooded mineapolis with poorly trained thugs who made it unsafe to go outside as a non-white person. I do not believe that a President AOC or whoever will take actions of equivalent damage.
Thanks, that’s useful. I mostly agree with you, and mistakenly read the second bullet point as saying “work that opposes fascism should come from all sides of the political spectrum”, which is something I agree with. I think the OP somewhat assumed that opposing fascism will look like ‘work with your local anti-fascist network’, but I expect much of it could look more like ‘militarising Europe’ (something the political left would typically oppose).
A lot of these claims are subtly different from the ones I made (not claiming that you were necessarily asserting that I agreed with them).
I wouldn’t endorse this statement either. Left and right fascism express themselves differently. So I definitely wouldn’t predict the ‘same behaviour’.
There is a wide coalition against facism, but they don’t call themselves antifa. It’s a much narrower group that adopts that label.
I don’t expect that either. But they may still ‘lock-in’ some of the backsliding which would become the new standard from which behaviour is measured, enabling continued escalation from there.
The claim I made was “‘anti-facist activists’ are often just as fascist as anyone on the right” and I believe that’s true. The impact of an election depends on the choices of a much broader set of people.
The damage that an action causes in the long-term has relatively little correlation with the damage that an action causes in the short-term. I’m not claiming ‘equivalently damaging short-term effects’.