So here is the thing I'm struggling with about antifa at the moment

[kaberett]

It is all very well to say "if you are not with the [explicitly violent] antifascists, you're with the fascists" but what these explanations do not seem to include is actual detailed discussion of how or why I can operate on the assumption that these people won't decide that I'm the next target. "Because you're not a fascist!" Okay, right, no, try again. Try again. I have been told, by people still substantively respected and liked in my geographically local community, that being visibly autistic in public is oppressive. I want to know what the fuck system of rules you're working with that means I won't be deemed unacceptable and I won't be deemed an appropriate target.

"Try not being a fascist!"

Yeah, thanks, see above about "me being visibly disabled in public is oppressive". See every interaction I've ever had where my disabilities are an inconvenience to The Cause.

Try again.

I'm really not comfortable with the extent to which people seem to want to shout me down on this one, using that well-known abusive tactic of telling me that if I don't unquestioningly support them in spite of grave reservations rooted in, like, bare minimum historical literacy plus personal experience, I am all that is Bad and Evil.

I am struggling to articulate this any better because of the sheer visceral horror I'm experiencing at a lot of the rhetoric that's happening. But, like, if you want to engage with me on this -- and I am, very definitely, open to being talked to -- please consider starting from a point of "I see your concerns and they're valid, here's why I'm convinced", not "you're a bad person for having doubts".

If, however, you want to ask me how Very Dare I tone-police you on this, I request that you sit this one out.

Comments

Stepping in Carefully

[wild_irises]

I have been thinking about this for many hours now, and finally decided to try and weigh in, hoping I can be careful and respectful, and with respect also to all the previous commenters.

So let me start with what you explicitly asked for, which is true. I see your concerns and they are valid. And for myself, I am not convinced of anything regarding antifa.

I am convinced that whether you call them Nazis, fascists, white supremacists, or whatever, you can pretty much guarantee that they take a very hard-core ablist line: i.e., they want to see disabled people at the very best out of the running to help breed the master race, and often they are just as happy to see disabled people dead.

I also have recently written about how privileged white men can use ablism to their own ends in an academic setting, and may feel rather too free to oppose ablist rhetoric that limits them without acknowledging ablist behaviors and assumptions they may be espousing.

In other words, it's complicated.

As I understand "antifa" (and there's lots useful about this upthread), it is not an organized group but is a loose connection of various affinity groups and other clusters. I have absolutely no doubt that some of the people who identify as antifa are ablist; I certainly believe you when you say that you have been described as oppressive by people identifying as antifa.

I live in Oakland, California, and the local antifa group also has roots in neighboring Berkeley, which may well be the most disabled-aware community in the world, thanks to a combination of our climate, the Center for Independent Living, and more recently the Ed Roberts Campus. I am inclined to believe that most local antifa-identifying people are unlikely to subscribe to the ablist positions you describe, especially so directly and unambiguously. Like racism, ablism permeates the culture and affects us all, and I'm sure there is ablism in local antifa, but I suspect it is more subtle.

I was also very struck by my hero Dahlia Lithwick's article about the actual behavior of antifa people in Charlottesville.

I think what I am struggling to say is something like:

1) OF COURSE, you have to find your own level of comfort with whom you support. Nothing ever obliges you to support or work with anyone who cuts off communication or refuses to listen to thoughtful disagreement.

2) ablism is everywhere and all kinds of people use it to their (our) own ends;

3) #notallantifa, at least not all to the same degree; and

4) thanks for bringing such a thoughtful conversation into the open.

Re: Stepping in Carefully

[kaberett]

Thank you for offering your time and your thoughtfulness and your vulnerability.

I have been very grateful to everyone participating in this conversation -- it's helped me articulate myself much better, and there is possibly going to be Yet Another post on this, but --

(0) Yes, obviously I think fascism needs opposition, obviously I recognise that this has to include violence (because it is forced by people who are bringing violence to the table), obviously this means there is a very broad group doing anti-fascist work and That Is Vital.

(1) All violence is a moral harm. This does not mean that it is not the least unacceptable outcome, but all violence is moral harm.

(2) I think the thing that's terrifying me is, very specifically, the increasingly pervasive-in-my-spheres rhetoric I'm seeing about violence being a moral imperative, any criticism of violence meaning that you side with fascists, etc.


Like: I am generally left-wing and generally politically engaged and this is the dominant message I am seeing about anti-fascist activism. (I would like to note also that I'm sort of exasperated that saying "I'm concerned about how antifa rhetoric is going" seems to have been interpreted as "I think anti-fascist activism is bad". Like. NO. This is a problem of terminology THANK YOU.) I am not seeing, at the same level and with the same intensity, "violence is step X on the list, once you've tried ABC, here's a bunch of resources on deescalation tactics". Or, you know, "here's how to incapacitate or make a point while doing as little lasting damage as possible". I'm just not seeing that. "Well you should look, then, Alex!" ... okay, but I am reasonably well-connected and this is still the impression I am getting and that is a problem when you are trying to do significant outreach as a movement.

So given that's what I'm seeing and given it's getting louder: part of what I'm scared of is people who want to Engage In Righteous Violence being drawn to that, with no publc-facing sense of accountability. This fear is exacerbated when the people I'm seeing sharing that rhetoric are people I know to stonewall or retaliate to having fuck-ups pointed out to them, especially when it's the rhetoric of "you can't disagree with any of this". Especially, I am categorically unwilling to subscribe to a model that says I have to unconditionally accept people acting in ways that do not actually have clear moral oversight and checks, with explicit statements of "if you get punched by accident OH WELL it's acceptable collateral fucking suck it up", because "accept this leadership in spite of all qualms, they are The Only Thing That Can Possibly Save You, do not criticise them or you're Harming The Cause" is a really excellent way to just ed up differently fucked over and it Scares Me.

So: no, #notallantifa; yes, I think anti-fascist activism is vital and I am actually supporting it in the ways I can; what's scaring me is the apparent-to-me uptick in "we'll only hit obvious fascists, but if you disagree with us you're a fascist" without the corresponding "and here's the rest of an ethical system, and here's everything we try first, and we can train you in general deescalation techniques because they're generally useful even if for whatever reason being on the front line of a protest is not safe for you". And I'm just... not seeing that.

Re: Stepping in Carefully

[wild_irises]

I think I am seeing it more than you are, which could be U.K./U.S., or California specific or Bay-Area specific, or just that we read different things.

I completely agree that all violence is moral harm. I think I agree that it is sometimes necessary anyway, and I certainly agree that sometimes (often?) one must choose between moral harms because no path is clean.

I guess the only thing I really want to say is that if you are correct and some or much of antifa is leaning towards immediate, uncriticizable violence, then I feel certain that other movements more like the ones you imagine will also crop up and do the things you are concerned about, fueled by thoughtful people like you.

Of course, antifa and any violent actions in the name of (or disguised as) antifa, will still get the press. And the crackdown, which is coming disturbingly fast and disproportionately in my home cities.