[Peace-discuss] Majoritarian Left Should Work to Marginalize “Antifa” Ideology

[Robert Naiman]

https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10159607471852656

The Majoritarian American Left Should Work to Isolate and Marginalize
“Antifa” Ideology from Majoritarian Left Political Spaces

Like Al Qaeda and ISIS, “Antifa” isn’t so much an organization as an
ideology - an ideology that promotes a certain kind of political violence.
In the case of Al Qaeda and ISIS, they promote violence by purportedly
“religiously-motivated” Sunni Muslims against the West, and also against
Muslims who are not Sunni. In the case of “Antifa,” they promote violence
by purported “leftists” against the police in the context of mass
demonstrations. Unlike Al Qaeda and ISIS, it is beyond reasonable dispute
that Americans have a First Amendment right to subscribe to and advocate
for “Antifa” ideology, so long as they do not promote imminent criminal
acts. This is a completely separate question from whether it is good for
people associated with the majoritarian American left to support, advocate,
or be associated with “Antifa” ideology. An analogous example known to all
peace and anti-war activists: it is beyond dispute than an American has a
Constitutional right to burn an American flag in the context of an anti-war
demonstration. It is a completely separate question whether it is a good
idea politically to burn an American flag in the context of an anti-war
demonstration if the goal is to end and prevent wars by moving public
opinion and institutions, which is of course what the goal of any anti-war
demonstration should be.

Advocating for a certain kind of political violence as an end in itself is
completely different from advocating for a certain kind of political
violence as a means to achieve some other political goal. Consider the
Afghan Taliban. Whatever one thinks of their goals or tactics, it is beyond
dispute that they have goals beyond the promotion of a certain kind of
political violence as an end in itself. For example, they want to drive
foreign military forces from Afghanistan; this is a top political goal for
them. So one can easily imagine a political deal between the U.S.
government and the Afghan Taliban in which the U.S. agrees to withdraw its
troops from Afghanistan and the Afghan Taliban agree to stop their violence
against U.S. forces, and indeed, the U.S. government has been trying to
achieve just such a deal. Achieving such a deal isn’t simple because there
are other issues and interests at stake. But in principle such a deal is
possible and most observers think this is a key component of how the U.S.
war in Afghanistan will end.

With Al Qaeda and ISIS, on the other hand, it’s hard to imagine what a
political deal with the U.S. would be, because attacking the U.S. and the
necessity of political violence are intrinsic components of their ideology
and they have no overarching political goal which they hold more dearly.
When the democratically-elected Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt was
overthrown by a military coup, Al Qaeda ideologists were ecstatic. See,
they said, we told you so. We told you that nonviolent, democratic politics
would never work.

“Antifa” ideology is more like Al Qaeda or ISIS than it is like the Afghan
Taliban, because there is no overarching political goal. For “Antifa”
ideology, physically attacking the police at mass demonstrations is an end
in itself.

Indeed, just as Al Qaeda welcomed the military coup in Egypt against the
democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood government as a validation of Al
Qaeda ideology, so “Antifa” ideologists welcome police abuses against
nonviolent protesters - often deliberately provoked by “Antifa” ideology
adherents - as a validation of “Antifa” ideology. See, the “Antifa”
ideologists say, we told you so. You were nonviolent, what good did it do
you? The police attacked you anyway.

During the civil war triggered by the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq in
March 2003, Al Qaeda blew up a very prominent Shia mosque. It was clear to
observers at the time that provoking the retaliation of Shia militias
against Sunnis was an explicit goal of Al Qaeda in the bombing. Al Qaeda
was trying to destabilize the Iraqi government by deliberately promoting
sectarian civil war. Similarly, provoking police attacks on nonviolent
protesters is often a goal of “Antifa” ideology adherents, since they
believe that such police attacks on nonviolent protesters validate “Antifa”
ideology and increase the political space for violence.

Association with “Antifa” ideology is a threat to the majoritarian American
left because the majoritarian American left has specific political goals
that it wants to achieve in the political system by moving public opinion
and institutions. Such specific political goals include “Medicare for All,”
tuition-free public college, ending private prisons, and ending
unconstitutional U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen. An ideology
of promoting physical attacks on the police is generally repellent to the
majority of Americans, because the police are public employees whose job
includes risking their lives to protect the public. Remember the citizens
of New York City going onto their balconies to applaud the “first
responders” to the Virus, not so long ago? Those “first responders”
included the police.

This commonsense political observation does not of course excuse, justify,
rationalize, or mitigate any act of abuse committed by any police officer
in America at any time. Ending such abuses is a separate, obviously urgent,
question. But the existence and urgency of police brutality in America is
no excuse or justification for anyone associated with the majoritarian
American left to make any choice that would help our political adversaries
associate us with “Antifa” ideology, any more than any American Muslim
political actor associated with the majoritarian political project to
protect American Muslims from discrimination and abuse would make any
choice that would make it easier for bigots to associate American Muslims
with Al Qaeda. Of course we have to defend the First Amendment rights of
“Antifa” ideology advocates regardless of our opposition to their ideology,
just as we have to defend the First Amendment rights of anyone else,
regardless of whether we like their views or not. But for majoritarian
American leftists to concede any political space on the American Left to
advocates of “Antifa” ideology would be a grave political mistake. “Antifa”
ideology is not a majoritarian left ideology; it is a “strategic
competitor” to majoritarian left ideology. The more political space
“Antifa” ideology is able to grab on the American left, the less political
space majoritarian left ideology will have, and the less effective the
majoritarian left will be.

Of course, saying that the majoritarian American left should work to resist
contamination or association with “Antifa” ideology doesn’t tell us how we
should do that. Bad faith political actors will try to tar the majoritarian
American left with association with “Antifa” ideology no matter what we do,
just as bad faith political actors will try to tar American Muslim
political actors with association with Al Qaeda no matter what they do. But
knowing this is true is no excuse for throwing up our hands and ceasing to
care about the consequences of the choices we make in terms of making it
easier or harder for our political adversaries to do this. We don’t throw
up our hands and shrug our shoulders about other political things; why
would we do it here?

We should work to isolate and marginalize from majoritarian left political
spaces the promotion of an ideology that physical attacks on the police are
exemplary. We can do this; people who claim that we can’t do this are being
dishonest. It’s a question of organizing and political will. Just now young
African-American organizers did it in Newark, according to the New York
TImes, protecting their protest against police brutality and their town
against people who wanted to take advantage of their protest to destroy
things. This isolation and marginalization of “Antifa” ideology from
majoritarian left political spaces doesn’t need to be 100% effective
everywhere all the time to be effective good enough. But we should get as
close to 100% as we can, as often as we can.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20200603/836cb07d/attachment.htm>