An article by Dr. Craig McCann for the Centre for the Analysis of the Radical Right caught my eye and, sadly, not in a good way. CARR is an excellent resource, but I am surprised that they published something like this – not because I object to criticism of anti-fascists[1], but because it’s done in such a ham-fisted way.
The article, as I read it, makes three points. Firstly, activists who describe themselves as anti-fascists are infiltrating the countering violent extremism (CVE) field. Secondly, those activists advocate violence and other criminality and, at least to some extent, this is new. Thirdly, Dr McCann feels he has to challenge the narrative that “the only way to oppose the radical right is by emulating their tactics” because violence is an ineffective way of challenging the far right.
All three points are either mistaken or unsubstantiated. I appreciate that Dr McCann has written a blog post, rather than an academic article, but there needs to be at least some attempt to stand up eyebrow-raising claims. A single person’s view is subject to all the human frailties we know so well; I’m sure Dr. McCann is entirely honest and straightforward in the articulation of his views, and I’m sure that he is highlighting what he thinks is a genuine problem. It may well be that there is a genuine problem. At the end of the article, however, I really don’t have much to tell me whether there is a problem or not.
The first point, as I say above, is that activists who describe themselves as anti-fascists are infiltrating the CVE field. My immediate question is ‘how do you know?’. The suggestion is that there are people who soi-disant anti-fascists joining the field. It strikes me off the bat that it is at least possible that, rather that infiltration, views within the field are changing. If people are infiltrating, that suggests people are joining. How many? How have you counted?
I can perhaps illustrate that with a personal example. Although I have been active in the Labour Party to a greater or lesser extent for two decades, I am not a supporter of Mr. Jeremy Corbyn or many of his policies. Indeed, I saw much of his support within the party as Johnny-come-latelies that advocated positions that were damaging to Labour or were wholly opposed to the values I believe Labour stands for (notably, anti-Semitism). I would, at different times, have said that there were few but vocal supporters of Mr. Corbyn within the party, or that a great many members supported Mr. Corbyn. Being in the middle of things, and without access to polling or somesuch, I couldn’t reach a reliable conclusion.
Polling isn’t straightforward, but the process of undertaking it does help us pin down some of our theoretical positions. When Dr. McCann says that people are infiltrating the CVE field, exactly what does ‘field’ mean? Is that anyone who talks about CVE? People professionally employed in the field? Let us say that, for instance, more people are turning up to academic conferences on CVE and saying silly things. That doesn’t mean there’s a significant change in CVE as discipline or as practice. That is not to say there’s not a change; it’s just not enough to draw the conclusion.
I do agree with Dr. McCann that not everyone who labels themselves as anti-fascist necessarily has a particularly good understanding of the varieties of far right, or that the far right is a different kind of thing from the “regular right” (although there is overlap in many cases).
Secondly, the article says that violence is not an effective way of combatting the far right, and that this has some degree of novelty as it is a phenomenon that has grown of late. I agree with Dr. McCann on the first part. The second part is more complicated. Violence by fascists and militant anti-fascists, or by para-fascists and para-anti-fascists, has waxed and waned together; viz., the Organisation for the Maintenance of Supply and the Workers’ Defence Corps; I Squad and the LLX; the National Front and Red Action; perhaps, the EDL and UAF. While I can certainly believe that a rise in violence opposed to the far right has led to more people in the CVE space advocating the same (although, again, this needs substantiation; it really is not good enough to say ‘lots of my colleagues advocate violence’), this is a longstanding phenomenon. Given that it seems to have some connection to increased far right violence, the explanation may be about how differing groups interact.
I will say here that a single interview on YouTube with, at the time of writing, thirty-eight thousand views, might be an interesting example but it doesn’t do anything to support the claims Dr. McCann makes. You can find almost anything on YouTube.
Early in the article, Dr. McCann says “Their grievances against the status quo run wild and it is often difficult to identify a coherent strand of thinking, other than anger.” This seems intuitively correct to me, at least in the case of the United States, on which I believe he may be focussing. Throughout Dr McCann’s work, there is a laudable call to understand the processes that drive people to the far right. I warrant that the same should be done with the far left. There is a populism of the left as well as of the right; there is a rejection of the liberal state on the left as well as on the right. We should be asking questions along the lines of whether the current economic situation drives people to the extremes, and why some people go to one extreme and some to another.
One of the recurrent errors I think Dr. McCann makes in his article is to use a tweet and its replies, or a YouTube video, as evidence. I don’t see how those represent what is going on in the CVE field. What someone says on Twitter, and how people reply to it, don’t indicate much, at least not without a lot of other work, and can’t be on what we base our positions.
Thirdly, the article looks to challenge “the implied narrative that the only way to oppose the radical right is by emulating their tactics”. I agree with the substance; violence is not the only way, or even an effective way, of opposing the radical right (or far right, or fascists; they’re not all the same thing). It seems likely to me that there are more people advocating that view; I’m really not sure how many of them are in the academy etc. rather than talking on Twitter. As Dr. McCann himself points out, many of these people appear to be performatively advocating violence rather than engaging in; as I suggest above, this is something that warrant study and understanding.
Antifa and anti-fascism are not synonyms. That is a truism, but it illustrates a lot. Equally, not everyone who calls themselves an anti-fascist online actually does anything other than talk, though I recognise that does have an effect. Not everyone who calls themselves an anti-fascist is in the CVE space. I fear that there is confusion of terms that leads to a confusion of ideas.
If I may offer a criticism of CARR[2], this article needed another editing pass. Putting in some references and changing the tone to be less grumpy[3] would have helped make the article sound like less of a rant against woke lefty snowflakes, and more like someone trying to highlight that there may be a developing problem in their field.
None of this is to say that anti-fascism, anti-fascists, or opposition to the far right more broadly gets everything right, is pure of motive, or should be immune from criticism. Where mistakes are made or points missed in an academic discipline, they should be corrected and improved on, and doubly so in a field like CVE that has clear, direct, and immediate public policy implications. I suspect that Dr. McCann is right in saying that there is more advocacy of violence amongst those opposed to the far right; I think there’s a decent chance he’s right that more people in the CVE space are advocating violence, or at least turning a blind eye, than previously. I suspect he is also overstating how big those problems are, and by a great deal in the latter case. Either way, the arguments he makes need substantiation.
Those criticisms need substantiation for the sake of academic rigour. They also need substantiation because there is a discourse, often used in bad faith, that complains, crudely, about woke lefty snowflakes cancelling everything. I’m not for a moment denying the existence of woke lefty snowflakes who want to cancel everything[4], but their existence, influence, and importance are deliberately overstated by actors who want to tarnish anything that looks at fascism, the radical right, and the populist right in order to allow their own illiberal, anti-democratic agendas to flourish.
[1] My own thesis, for what it is worth, is on civil society opposition to the far right in Britain, specifically looking at 2005 to 2015. I am quite critical of quite a lot of anti-fascist activity for being either ineffectual and a waste of time and effort or, in some cases, actually counterproductive.
[2] I do this with considerable hesitation, as I’m going to be launching a blog for my workplace soon that, at least to begin with, I’m going to be editing.
[3] I am aware of exactly how hypocritical it is for me to criticise anyone for being grumpy.
[4] In fairness to myself, I only want to cancel most things.
