💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › crimethinc-squaring-off-against-fascism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 23:31:31. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Squaring off against Fascism
Author: CrimethInc.
Date: September 4, 2017
Language: en
Topics: Anti-fascism, interview, Charlottesville
Source: Retrieved on 23rd April 2021 from https://crimethinc.com/2017/09/04/squaring-off-against-fascism-critical-reflections-from-the-front-lines-an-interview

CrimethInc.

Squaring off against Fascism

In the three weeks since anarchists helped shut down the largest fascist

rally the US has seen in decades, the pendulum has swung back and forth

between new public support for anti-fascist organizing and a dishonest,

fearmongering reaction spearheaded by the extreme center that plays

right into the hands of far-right elements in the police and FBI. Now,

fascists are shifting towards a strategy of decentralized attacks while

the Trump administration prepares a new racist offensive against nearly

a million residents of the United States. It’s more pressing than ever

to learn from our victories in order to strategize for the next round.

We spoke with a participant in the front lines of the clashes in

Charlottesville about why an under-equipped anti-fascist contingent was

able to defeat a more numerous body of fascists, how to halt the creep

towards authoritarianism, and what courage means in these struggles.

In Charlottesville, on Friday night, August 11, if the torchlit march

had not encountered any protesters around the monument or elsewhere—if

it had been able to proceed without meeting any opposition—what do you

think the consequences would have been?

Well, it’s easy to be doctrinaire when you’re speculating. I mean, any

time fascists do something provocative without opposition, it sets a new

baseline for them. It’s like, “Oh, marching with torches and chanting

‘Blood and Soil’ is a pretty low-key thing to do, let’s always do that

at our gatherings from now on. It’s fun and easy!” But I think it

strengthens their movement even more when they encounter opposition that

they can easily defeat, which is what actually happened on Friday. If

that had been the only event in Charlottesville, or if the rest of the

weekend had gone the same way, it would have been a gift to their

movement.

I try to imagine the perspective of a fresh young recruit. You know he’s

posturing and puffing himself up, but he’s nervous too. He feels awkward

putting on that white polo shirt, he feels nervous carrying a torch at

first. But then he sees everyone around him doing the same thing, his

voice is amplified by a hundred voices saying the same words as him, and

that nervousness turns into elation. So right there, his body learns an

important lesson: “When I feel scared, these are the people who make me

safe. When I feel weak, these are the people who make me strong.” This

is like church, you know. That whole process happens even if not a

single counterprotestor shows up. He already knows that most of the

world is against him.

If there’s tangible, physical opposition, the nervousness is going to be

more intense, but so is that gut-level lesson learned from a victory. So

when we confront these things, we should recognize that we’re raising

the stakes. I think groups like SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center)

fixate on that side of things when they try to discourage people from

counterprotesting. I think their attitude is, we can’t do anything about

these young men’s acculturation into hate groups, but we can deny them

opportunities to really get hardened. Or maybe they think that

acculturation happens in internet forums, not torch marches. I don’t

know. I think anarchists sometimes understand this process better than

sociologists, because we’ve been through something similar, in

subcultural spaces or street marches or whatever.

Also we’re not static. Even when we take a loss that strengthens the

movement we’re fighting against, it can strengthen us too. Friday night

seriously shook people, but it probably made us more determined and

smarter on Saturday. I almost want to say wiser. We knew exactly what

kind of victory we needed to deny them, and we knew we would have to do

it without the advantage of physical superiority. If no one had showed

up to oppose them on Friday, maybe we would have made worse mistakes the

next day, against a sharper adversary. There’s no way to know.

Why were anti-fascists not as prepared to respond on Friday night? Can

you say anything about the motivations of those who still chose to

confront the torchlit march?

The details of that march were announced much later, that’s the main

thing. Also I think some kinds of counter-protestors are always going to

stay away from a nighttime event like that, because it’s more likely to

be crazy. Some people were prepared, but it was just different

situations.

I do think Friday highlighted one weakness we have right now, which is

that we don’t share much common culture around assessing our group

capacity in the heat of the moment. I’ve seen this at other events too.

Some of us are used to quietly running the numbers when we’re in a

crowd, asking ourselves, you know, what are the odds we can successfully

unarrest people if there are issues with the police? Or what are the

odds we can physically prevent this group of white supremacists from

reaching their destination? That kind of thing. And adjusting the

approach accordingly. Other people, maybe people who aren’t drawing on

the same kinds of street experience or think of their goals differently,

seem to approach those questions morally rather than situationally.

Like, we must not let them reach their destination, therefore we shall

not let them reach their destination.

I’m not saying there’s one single correct way to look at it, but if

we’re not having those conversations constructively outside of these

crisis moments, it’s not good. Those conversations are part of building

a strong movement culture.

On Saturday, it appeared that counter-demonstrators were outmatched by

fascists in terms of muscle mass, equipment, numbers, and terrain. It

was a terrifying situation. Yet anti-fascists did unexpectedly well in

the confrontations. What do you attribute this to?

You mean we did unexpectedly well, right? I think antifascists had a

deeper understanding of diversity of tactics. The presence of

counterprotestors with a personal commitment to nonviolence was

important, I think, and so were the diverse approaches of those who did

use physical force, I mean as far as acting more offensively or

defensively.

Unite the Right was all about image. They wanted three things: look like

victims of antifa/”SJW” aggression, look like friends of the police, and

look like they were winning the physical battle in the streets. I think

all those wires got crossed in Charlottesville because of the diversity

of their opposition.

Side note, we made a conscious decision not to do Saturday in black

bloc. I think that helped in the specific circumstances.

So diversity of tactics, yeah. A lot of these alt-right people are

scared of confrontation, even though they fantasize about power. You

could tell that made it hard for them to psychologically switch gears;

by the time they figured out how to deal with one kind of

counterprotestor, the situation had changed and they had to go back to

square one. They had to think too hard. They didn’t know if they were

going to get punched or prayed at. And the whole time they’re getting

pelted with paint balloons, and they just look silly.

Then you had macho types who reacted to that paralysis by just going

ham, charging in swinging by themselves. That was scary, because these

were big dudes who understood violence, but it didn’t really serve their

larger goals, and they lost fights because we would surround them and

beat them back. It didn’t help those guys that their official rally was

up a hill behind barricades.

Finally, there were the guys in full-on riot gear, plexiglass shields

and clubs and face-shields, stuff like that. They had a hard time early

in the day, marching into the park, because they couldn’t figure out

what kind of confrontation they were in; they wanted to beat us up but

they wanted it to look like our fault, and they came out worse on both

counts. Later, they regrouped, and it seemed like they were ready to

crack some skulls in a more paramilitary style–charge out of the park in

formation and just trample whoever was in their way. I think that would

have happened more if the rally had gone on longer, because they were

starting to give up on the whole image thing. We should have had more

tools to obscure their vision and keep them at a distance. But the cops

dispersed the rally before it went there. I think we can take some

credit for that.

This sounds weird, but I think anarchists might have better discipline

than Nazis, at least in this kind of situation. Fascists had the

advantage when things were really scripted, and a lot of them would have

had the advantage in a one-on-one fight, but they were just clumsy when

it came to navigating a complex situation. I guess I mean

self-discipline. But it has this real communal aspect to it, because we

actually care about each other and pay attention to each other, like not

just our cliques and affinity groups, but also strangers. You can’t fake

that. You can’t squeeze that out of an authoritarian ideology.

Some have reported that it was very important that there were guns on

the anti-fascist side of the conflict, to discourage fascists from

escalating past a certain degree of force. Others have expressed concern

about whether guns can be a useful tool in struggles for liberation.

Coming away from Charlottesville, what is your impression?

I don’t know if guns were an important deterrent as the day wore on.

Maybe they were early on before things really started, when we were just

milling around several blocks away. Realistically, if a Nazi had started

shooting later in the rally no one would have had a clear shot before he

emptied his clip, and once that gunfire started the crossfire would be

hellish. So I guess it depends what kind of threat you think was

deterred. Probably the deterrent effect was a factor in the open areas

where more one-on-one fights happened—you might not pull a knife in the

open if you think there’s a chance you’re being covered. But on that

topic, the possibility of getting stabbed makes you pretty careful too.

We were all thinking about Sacramento.

I can see an argument that the possibility of handguns mixed in the

crowd would discourage the guys with shields and clubs from rushing in

too aggressively. Maybe it put more pressure on them to stay in very

tight formation, which limits how aggressive you can get with a club.

I’m just speculating here, I still think the concern with image was a

bigger factor for them. Anyway, that’s different from the militia style,

open carry rifles.

I guess I did see a neo-Confederate man in the front lines reach for his

pistol and then change his mind when we yelled that he had a gun. He

settled for an extendable baton instead. So that’s an example where

knowing that you can be identified and targeted will convince you to

keep your own weapon holstered. That deterred him from brandishing a

gun, though. He really did have a self-defense mentality, even if it was

a racist, delusional one, and he was going to pull his gun to “deter”

the mob he was facing. It would have been very different if his primary

goal was to kill people.

As soon as you start talking deterrence, you’re talking about an arms

race. I think that’s a danger whether it’s guns, knives, or plexiglass

shields. You lose the social character of the struggle and you lose the

diversity of tactics. I don’t mind being around assault rifles, but I do

mind the paramilitary mentality. We’re susceptible to that mentality

when fear clouds our thinking.

If you get into an arms race with a bunch of scared people who have

little or no experience of gun violence—I’m talking about antifascists

as well as the alt fascists, we’re scared too—you’re creating an

extremely volatile situation. All it takes is one jumpy person pulling a

trigger.

Probably the only thing you can do is think very concretely about what

you’re trying to deter. Reflect. It has to be based in experience, yours

or a mentor’s or something, and it has to be real about the big picture.

Otherwise, you’ve just got a very risky security blanket.

Do you have any thoughts about what approaches we should expect fascists

to take in the wake of Charlottesville?

It’s a dangerous time. They’ve already lost the battle to look like

victims, so some of them will be happy to look like successful

aggressors. That could certainly mean they go in the direction of

clandestine attacks, but it could also mean they show up at these things

looking like Roman legionnaires and they rush us first, hard. Our best

defense is numbers, which maybe we have now. Obviously, there are

tactical questions for us too.

On the other hand, some of them may try to move back toward a mass

movement, and away from the fringe. They might stick to being the

“pro-white bloc” at Trump rallies.

What do the events in Charlottesville mean for the strategy of Richard

Spencer, who seeks to popularize a new “respectable” white supremacy?

He lost. His strategy lost. The president tried running interference for

him, but it didn’t work. I mean, these suit-and-tie Nazis can’t change

their character overnight, so they’ll keep trying the same rhetoric, but

it’s going to be a dwindling audience.

On the other hand, that rhetoric does enable young alt-right recruits to

remain in denial about what they’re signing up for. For the most part,

they think they’re the Freikorps, but not the Final Solution. We should

also remember, again, that clashes like the ones we’ve been seeing can

harden these kids. So the ones who don’t drop out because of fear or

shame are becoming a more dangerous kind of cadre. The respectability

strategy is basically over, but the same individuals can now go about

consolidating their gains.

Can anti-fascists take credit for the ouster of Stephen Bannon? Will his

return to Breitbart and the grassroots far right embolden fascists and

give them more momentum? Beyond the obvious strategy of “no platform for

fascists,” what role should anti-fascist activity play in our struggle

against the state, the chief implementer of totalitarian measures?

That’s a lot of questions! Bannon? I don’t really care who takes credit

for his career change, but I don’t really see it emboldening the far

right. You know, the Democrats want to tell it like Charlottesville got

Bannon kicked out, because that shifts the focus back to the Oval Office

and out of the streets. It might have. I don’t know. I’m glad he’s out,

but it’s not my focus. I’m not sure he cares whether he’s directing his

movement from inside the institutions or from outside.

What I anticipate is that he’ll try to create a home for all the young

people who don’t want to go to Nazi rallies anymore, he’ll push this

“alt-left” nonsense, basically he’ll try to do a better version of

Richard Spencer’s strategy. That means no Nazis, no Klansmen, just nice

Midwestern church people who wouldn’t mind seeing the police gun us

down. I’m not sure the momentum is with him now, but we’ll see.

Okay, about the state… We’re still in the midst of an authoritarian

backlash in the broader culture, alongside the white backlash. Trump

draws on it, but so do his opponents. If you’re trying to get a popular

mandate for authoritarian governance, you present yourself as the only

force able to contain irreconcilable, violent conflicts within society.

That’s what Trump was doing when he talked about the “many sides” of

violence in Charlottesville, and I’m sure that’s what his centrist

opposition will do when they try to replace him.

There’s two ways to respond as an anti-authoritarian. You can double

down on the irreconcilable social conflicts, and say it’s our job to

bring them out into the open and fight consciously from the side of the

exploited, you know, refuse an oppressive social peace. Or you can

dispute the state’s claim that it can resolve people’s conflicts better

than we can resolve them on our own. Who does it serve when we perceive

our conflicts as irreconcilable, and why do we have to listen to those

voices?

Right now, people like Bannon are pushing a vision of a society

threatened by deep, irreconcilable conflicts, but they’re not the

conflicts a leftist would talk about. They’re citizen vs. alien, West

vs. Islam, and so on. We can push for a different way of seeing the

structural divisions in our society, and put our bodies on the line for

those beliefs, but if that’s all we do we’re giving a lot of ground to

authoritarians who want to be the neutral party. I’m talking about

mom-n-pop authoritarians, not just the deep state. So I think we have to

bring the idealist side of anarchism with us too, don’t just challenge

the analysis of our society’s real conflicts, but challenge the state’s

claim to protect us from each other. Challenge the belief that we have

always needed protection from each other, and always will.

In Europe, one of the anarchist critiques of antifascism has been that

it obscures the necessity of struggle against the state, capitalism, and

other forms of domination. Do you see this as a risk in the US? Why or

why not?

What do you mean “obscures the necessity of struggle”? Like we imagine

that as soon as the last Nazi is killed, capitalism and the state will

come crumbling down of their own accord, and trans women won’t have to

worry about getting randomly murdered for their gender? I don’t see that

risk. If you just mean that antifascism can tie down anarchists and keep

them from prioritizing the work they really believe in, well of course

it can. It’s a defensive struggle. Defense only works if you’re poised

to counterattack, and our best counterattack will always be liberatory

social movements.

What I do see is that our experiences of struggle deeply shape our

imagination. That’s true whether your experience is rioting, or

community organizing, or fighting Nazis, or just daily survival in a

world that wants to erase you. You start to imagine the whole revolution

as just whatever struggle you’re used to, but on a larger scale. And

then maybe you’re just limited by your learned instincts and the culture

you build up around them.

That may be a problem for the generation that’s been radicalized in the

Trump era. There’s the potential for a kind of creeping authoritarianism

on the left, the revolutionary left I mean. You know, that whole

mythology of the militant… it can obscure the necessity of struggle

against—not the state of today, but the state of tomorrow.

But you know, we have a choice about that. We don’t have to be

determined by our experiences, even if we’re shaped by them. We can have

a more expansive vision of struggle. We can choose what we’re struggling

for.

Clearly, it takes a lot of courage to physically confront armed

fascists. What does courage mean for antifascists? What kind of courage

should we be trying to cultivate? What are the risks of focusing on

courage as a value?

Courage is being willing to die for the sake of victory. That’s a

straightforward definition. And that is exactly what happened in

Charlottesville. One of us died, and we had a victory. That might sound

inspiring to some people, but to me it’s fucking nauseating, it makes me

want to cry. I mean, I didn’t know Heather, I don’t know if she was

preparing herself for the possibility of death. She’s not around to tell

us if she wants to be a hero. I do know that some of us entered that

weekend consciously accepting that we might die, or that our comrades

and loved ones might die. When you take on that kind of mindset, it

leaves some scars. I just can’t think about this question in an abstract

way.

Some people talk about courage like it’s just a matter of inner

righteousness or integrity or something. I disagree with that idea. You

can be a person of great integrity, ready to go through the fire for

your beliefs, but when it comes time to use the weapons at your disposal

you’re too hesitant to make a contribution. Our understanding of courage

should capture that readiness to step forward and act without

guarantees. That’s why I say it’s about victory.

This isn’t about violence versus nonviolence. Some of the most

courageous people I saw in Charlottesville were not throwing punches;

they were dressing wounds, or praying, or standing solitary in front of

a line of advancing riot cops. Those people were all using the weapons

at their disposal.

I guess the risk is that courage alone can’t guide you. I mean,

courageous soldiers can fight imperialist wars, but that doesn’t make

them right. Honor and sacrifice can fuel a spiral of meaningless

violence. Sometimes the things that make you hesitate when you shouldn’t

are also the things that make you reassess your direction when really

you should.

If you want to back way up and look at it, courage is a warrior value,

and anarchism is a peace movement. I mean that in the very simple sense

that it’s about people treating each other right without being forced

to. That’s peace. Obviously, there’s fighting involved too. I’m just not

convinced that the things that make us strong in the face of adversity

are always the things that make us good to one another, or that being

ready for war makes you ready for peace. Maybe that just comes back to

making sure that your vision of victory is really worth dying for.