ANTIFA: The Anti-Fascist Handbook by Mark Bray
An interview by Chris Hedges with the author of this book sparked my interest. Formerly, I had observed what seemed to me to be public disorder under the guise of some kind of political resistance. Furthermore, the tactics portrayed on the news videos struck me as disturbingly similar to the groups that Antifa purported to combat. Again, I was disturbed by the fear that, despite whatever principled cause the group may claim, such a group could be easily infiltrated by agents of the state. However, what I didn’t understand until I read it was that authorMark Bray, as a college lecturer, gives us, first and foremost, a history lesson and secondly a clarification. While I’m not rushing out to buy a Guy Fawkes mask in the near future or a black hoodie, I am glad I read this book. Furthermore, the dangers of the group that Antifa opposes are much more severe than the actions of this group itself.
His scholarship is rewarding, for the history is extensive as is the overview of the events of our current period, which, in his documentation, would seem to be much more ubiquitous and threatening than the mainstream media (MSM) would have you believe. The author connects the roots of history to his warnings of a clear and present danger in the Western democracies, both in Europe and the United States. Not only does he connect over time the anti-Semitism of the Dreyfuss case of 1890 in France to now, but he also makes connections between the classes throughout the historical periods. For a quick sample, Hitler, during his rise, in the 1920s and ‘30s used the Sturmabteilung, the brown shirts, on the ground for street thuggery. The ‘pinstripes’ as he calls them operate with the street thugs as a concerted social force. The KKK are not exempt, for as he says, they “are not entirely unrelated.” He brings us up to date in America.
Mark Bray is, indeed, a professor and educator. It is evident from the outside that this text is a defense, an apologia, for political action with a broad platform. There is no subterfuge: what you read is what you get. As a polemic, he defends ‘deplatforming’ of Nazis with vigour as the antifascist groups would disallow the racist, totalitarian right to organise and speak at their rallies. However, he emphasises that Antifa is not a particular group, for it is not organised under any particular manifesto or system. Antifascism is a loose connection of concerned citizens who would oppose authoritarian oppressors as exemplified by Golden Dawn in Greece, have combatted reconstituted fascist groups in Britain in 1946, would challenge the racist anti-immigrant groups that would torch refugee camps such as Rostock in Germany, and have slugged the racist Richard Spencer noses on politicos in the United States. Few use fists. Such antifascist groups would include Grandma at home writing letters to her political leader to support refugees, groups supporting equal opportunity for minorities in depressed conditions, demonstrators for Julian Assange, peaceful marchers against Islamophobia and anti-Semitism before City Hall, churches defending the rights of minorities in foreign countries, and a myriad of other individuals and groups doing the quiet, unsung work in communities against hate. Antifascism does not require the punching of Nazi noses, which Mr. Bray says, is a very small element of the movement. It makes me think that I, too, am antifascist. That doesn’t come as a surprise to me as a position, but it surprised me that he would feel a connection with me, as I write this piece. I have always balked at street violence, but he would include what so many of us do in our quiet lives for freedom as part of the whole.
Antifa has been roundly criticised and opposed for the ‘deplatforming’ by violence if necessary of the street rallies of neo-Nazis and their ilk, for Western democracies ‘sanctify’ free speech as the holy grail of civilisation. He deals with it, and as it is a complex and combative discussion, I cannot do it justice here. I can merely touch on the issues.
Mark Bray’s claim that the same liberals who decry the silencing of Nazis practise censorship in so many other areas such as advertising, sexual content, and selection by news media are disingenuous in their claims of political purity. However, he argues, one must examine the tables turned and imagine life with the fascists having won. Where would your free speech then? Gone. Bray and his confreres insist on no fascist, hate-mongering ‘free speech’. The safety of minorities and political discussion is a matter of the higher good.
Furthermore, the resistors in the Warsaw Ghetto were antifascist, noble and brave—no debate there. The movie-going population loves anti-war movies such as Inglorious Basterds when the agents of the Third Reich are smeared. However, I might add, that is box-office and then anti-fascism sells. However, he does bring out a historical example that cannot be ignored:
But would those same movie-goers consider it just as heroic to fight Nazis before the outbreak of war, while Hitler’s regime was building camps and ghettos? Or before Hitler even took power in 1933? How would Americans respond to a cinematic depiction of communist and social democratic organisations, such as the Red Front Fighters’ League, the Iron Front for Resistance Against Fascism, and the Antifaschistische Aktion when they fought the Nazi Sturmabteilung in the 1920s and ‘30s? I like to imagine most Americans would sympathise with these militant formations because they know that the story ultimately ends in the gas chambers.
As far as liberal democracies go, he reminds us that the democratic socialists made a Pact of Pacification with Mussolini in 1921, removing significant opposition to the dictator’s rise. Mr. Bray does not trust the lofty ideals of the intellectual liberals on the ground, for there are too many examples where those societies who did not stop the menace ended up looking backward to history. He does not leave out Trump’s America and the effects of the Patriot Act.
The only long-term solutions to the fascist menace is to undermine its pillars of strength in society grounded not only in white supremacy but also in ableism, heteronormativity, patriarchy, nationalism, transphobia, class rule, and many others.
As we witness the parade of white nationalism, straight prides and Confederacy-chanting racists, he adds that when the cry is for ‘whiteness’ that cry must be stopped. He says “that, as a modern identity forged through slavery and class rule, whiteness is indefensible.”
While personally being admirer of Martin Luther King and his non-violence, I was forced to think deeply with Mark Bray’s premises. There are times when the Western, enlightened, liberal democracies have fallen to fascism and also times when they have come perilously close. A historian will remember the courage of Smedley Butler and his blowing the whistle on the intended, fascist Business Plot in 1934, a scheme the Congressional inquiry deemed believable. The date February 20, 1939, about six months before the invasion of Poland, comes to mind when 20,000 Nazis had a pro-Hitler rally with uniforms and anthems and sieg heils while waving swastikas in Madison Square Gardens. One hundred thousand protestors rallied outside. I know where I would have been—‘deplatforming’ them with all my strengths even to the punching of a few Nazi noses.