@flashfyr: My disagreement cuts along a number of axes (yes, grammar fascists, that is the plural of axis). Antifa claims they exist to combat fascism. They are, as you point out, called anti-fascist. Not, for example, anti-civic nationalist or anti-libertarian or anti-neoliberal. But I have watched antifa closely since they emerged onto the national scene in America and I have noticed they rarely fight fascists. Instead they generally use violence against civic nationalists, libertarians and neoliberals.
It seems to me that there is a motte and bailey in practice here. The bailey is "if you are insufficiently left wing we will engage in street violence against you". The motte is "we oppose fascism and you don't support fascists do you?".
Do not mistake my intentions; I do not mean to defend the honor of civic nationalists, libertarians and neoliberals (or neoconservitives, for that matter). Rather, I mean to point out that there is a substantial difference between the groups antifa claims to oppose and the groups they actually use violence against.
My second objection is purely tactical. Imagine you are the CEO of antifa (a silly metaphor but bear with me, if you would be so kind). Your job is to defeat fascism wherever you find it. The board presents you with two options. The first option is to go into the street and punch fascists, neoliberals, libertarians and civic nationalists. The second option is to go into the streets and punch only verified fascists.
You consider these options. The first option has the benefit of being easy to execute. The groups being punched compose the majority of the politically active. However it has the down side of creating a perverse incentive. If the penalty for being a neoliberal, libertarian or civic nationalist is being punched by antifa and the penalty for being a fascist is the same, then why not be a fascist? The consequences are no worse than any other option. After all, between Richard Spencer and Andy Ngo it was the latter whose beating was most severe. Secondly over time society may become skeptical that anyone you punch is a fascist because you are punching many people who are not fascists.
The second option (punching only verified fascists) has an immediate downside; fascists are rare and tend to be hidden. It would take some effort to root them out. However it has an upside which is that over time society is likely to come to trust your judgement on who is, and is not, a fascist.
From the outside looking in it seems the strategy that would best fit antifa's stated goals (combat fascism) is the second strategy. However they have adapted the first. One might assume, uncharitably, that antifa's actual goals and their stated goals are not the same thing; that there is some motte and baileying going on here. Alternately one might be more charitable and assume that antifa is simply bad at tactics. Either way, I disagree with their tactics.
Log in to comment