A-Infos (en) France, OCL CA #354 - Critique of Contemporary Antifascism (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

The rise of far-right ideas is a real problem, and we must react to 
violent groups. However, we take a critical look at contemporary 
antifascism. --- What is fascism? ---- The crisis stemming from the 
First World War saw the emergence of fascism, a nationalist ideology 
claiming to be revolutionary because it broke with capitalism (the 
famous Third Way: neither capitalist nor communist). It advocates a 
highly hierarchical, virile regime, founded on the nation as absolute 
primacy and viewed as ethnically homogeneous.
The bourgeoisie may turn to fascism in times of profound crisis, despite 
its program being inherently hostile to it. Fascist ideology then serves 
only as the cement for mass mobilization, transforming despair into hope 
for a new order centered on a unity of national interest placed above 
class conflicts. This movement seeks to annihilate any challenge to this 
national unity through terror, relying on both state and extra-state 
forces. Mass militias drawn from radicalized segments of society are 
mobilized to crush all dissent. The result is a militarized 
dictatorship... serving the ruling class.

Fascism differs from a classic dictatorship in its legal conquest of 
power and the use of militias to destroy unions and political parties, 
imposing widespread conscription... for the benefit of the bourgeoisie. 
An authoritarian, racist, or nationalist regime is therefore not 
necessarily fascist. The National Rally (RN), for example, is not a 
fascist party today: it does not have an organized militant base of 
armed militias, only an electoral base. Only small fascist groups opt 
for physical force (see CA 336, "The Far Right and Fascism Today").

Everything is becoming fascism.
Today, the word "fascist" is used apolitically. As soon as the state 
becomes violent, it is labeled fascist, as if a bourgeois state weren't 
structurally repressive as soon as any protest exceeds what it deems 
acceptable. In France, the violent repression of labor and political 
movements has intensified, but this doesn't make the state "fascist." It 
simply resorts to authoritarian methods already in use (see the Paris 
Commune, the Algerian War, etc.), some of which have always existed for 
a segment of the population.

Furthermore, any opposition to left-wing values becomes "fascist" for 
some. However, making racist or sexist remarks doesn't make someone a 
fascist. This shift leads to labeling anarchist writings deemed 
"transphobic" by certain postmodern circles as "fascist." Let's also 
remember the Yellow Vests (GJ), labeled "fascists" in their early days 
because their rhetoric didn't align with the sanitized thinking of 
activist circles.

In short, current antifascism tends to be more moral than political, 
based on humanist, antiracist, antisexist, and other values. Hence the 
creation of broad, often apolitical, antifascist fronts.

The Political Impasse of Antifascism
By labeling the National Rally (RN) fascist, current antifascism limits 
its strategy to elections: preventing an RN victory (voting for Chirac 
against Le Pen, Macron against Le Pen, tomorrow 
Retailleau/Darmanin...?). These fronts, primarily electoral or through 
demonstrations, defend "representative democracy." Certainly, this 
guarantees more individual freedoms than dictatorship, but the current 
authoritarian tendencies are the bourgeoisie's response to the crisis. 
If the crisis worsens, even so-called "democratic" parties could support 
a dictatorial regime (let us remember the full powers granted to Pétain 
in 1940 by the Chamber elected in 1936).

It is therefore essential to place criticism of the state at the heart 
of the analysis of authoritarianism. Fascism or authoritarian tendencies 
cannot be fought by defending current democracy. That would be asking 
the bourgeoisie not to be authoritarian when it has chosen to be so.

Fighting the far right and its fascist leanings
We are not asking the state to dissolve far-right groups. Banning them 
would not make them disappear, but would give the illusion that the 
state is protecting us, whereas these measures would backfire as soon as 
we become too troublesome. We also reject the "republican front," which 
pushes us to ally ourselves with the representatives of the exploiters.

Combating the rise of the far right-and the potential rise of fascism if 
the crisis worsens-does not involve resorting to the "democratic" state. 
Faced with attacks by fascist groups in certain cities, we must stand 
together physically, at the grassroots level, alongside other activists. 
But confining ourselves to a power struggle within small groups is a 
dead end; these groups already have ties to the police and the military, 
and are likely to receive increasing support from the state apparatus in 
the future.

To counter the far right, we must wrest from it the monopoly on 
widespread discontent. Electoral "republican fronts" with bourgeois 
parties will not achieve this. We need radical social movements that 
attract the most exploited and oppressed populations. This presupposes 
that there is no thought police excluding, in the name of "antifascism," 
those who do not share the verbal and political codes of the "radical left."

Conclusion
Like the Yellow Vests, only radical movements can pull us out of social 
resignation and the drift toward nationalism and reaction. Unlike the 
Yellow Vests, the objective should not be focused on confrontations with 
law enforcement, but on confronting the capitalist class outside the 
current institutional framework... and therefore outside the electoral 
framework (including the National Rally).

RV

http://oclibertaire.lautre.net/spip.php?article4570
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en