APRIL 2021 Understanding 21st-Century Militant Anti-Fascism FULL REPORT Nigel Copsey, Teesside University Samuel Merrill, Umeå University, Sweden This report details the key findings of work conducted by the CREST commissioned project Understanding Twenty-First Century Militant Anti-Fascism: An Analytical Framework And Matrix. You can view all the outputs from this project at: crestresearch.ac.uk/projects/ twenty-first-century-militant-anti-fascism/ The authors would like to express their appreciation to the project’s external advisors: Professor Paul Thomas and Dr Graham Macklin. This research was funded by the Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats – an independent Centre commissioned by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC Award: ES/N009614/1) and which is funded in part by the UK security and intelligence agencies and Home Office. www.crestresearch.ac.uk ©2021 CREST Creative Commons 4.0 BY-NC-SA licence.www.crestresearch.ac.uk/copyright TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 4 2. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................7 3. DEFINING TERMS .............................................................................................................................. 9 4. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................11 5. MILITANT ANTI-FASCISM IN THE UNITED STATES ................................................................. 13 5.1 Historical Overview ................................................................................................................................................................13 5.2 Portland ....................................................................................................................................................................................18 5.3 New York City ......................................................................................................................................................................... 23 5.4 Philadelphia ............................................................................................................................................................................26 5.5 The views of militant anti-fascists: key findings ...........................................................................................................28 5.6 Prospective analysis: three scenarios .............................................................................................................................. 45 6. MILITANT ANTI-FASCISM IN BRITAIN .......................................................................................52 6.1 Historical Overview ............................................................................................................................................................... 52 6.2 Brighton ................................................................................................................................................................................... 55 6.3 Liverpool ..................................................................................................................................................................................59 6.4 London ......................................................................................................................................................................................62 6.5 The views of militant anti-fascists: key findings ...........................................................................................................66 6.6 Prospective analysis: two scenarios ..................................................................................................................................77 7. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 81 8. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................83 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: KEY POINTS AND RISK MATRIX Understanding 21st-Century Militant Anti-Fascism 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: KEY POINTS AND RISK MATRIX Anti-fascist militancy has existed for as long as political space which is commonly understood by fascism has, but militant anti-fascism is still largely the mainstream society as ‘far right’. neglected across both academic and policy-practitioner ● Militant anti-fascists share a common commitment communities. A far more robust, evidence-based to the principles of ‘no platform’, whereby understanding is now needed, especially in a context individuals holding views regarded as ‘fascist’ or where militant anti-fascist protest in the United States ‘fascistic’ should be prevented from contributing has been conflated with ‘domestic terrorism’. to public debate ‘by whatever means necessary’. The militant anti-fascist movement, or Antifa, is a ● Militant anti-fascists also share a commitment to de-centralised, non-hierarchical social movement. It ‘direct action’, whereby anti-fascist actors use their is loosely structured on dispersed networks of local own power to directly reach their goals rather than groups. It has a distinctly anti-authoritarian orientation, appeal to the authorities. consisting, for the most part, of anarchists; anarcho- communists; left-libertarians; and radical socialists. ● While the willingness to use confrontational The movement is transnational, but it responds in local violence separates militant anti-fascism from conditions. non-militant forms, militant anti-fascists exercise restraint in their use of violence. This is significant. This report presents evidence from six local case It clearly challenges simplistic associations with studies: three from the United States: Portland, New terrorism and the planning of terrorist acts and/ York City, Philadelphia; and three from Britain: or mass violence that threatens life. The claim Brighton, Liverpool, London. It adopts a multi-method that fascism is defined by an ultra-violent credo approach, combining interviews with anti-fascist imposes a value-based, prefigurative boundary on activists drawn from these six localities, as well as militant anti-fascists in both their use and rhetorical analysis of digital platforms used by local militant anti- representation of violence. Strategic concerns fascist groups (Rose City Antifa; NYC Antifa; Philly factor too, such as the risk that violent escalation Antifa; Brighton Antifascists; Merseyside Anti-Fascist will lead either to group isolation from the wider Network; and London Antifascists). anti-fascist coalition or dissolution as a result of increasing state repression. Internal cultures The following conclusions are drawn: of decision-making and recruitment structures function as further dynamics of restraint (or ● Militant anti-fascists are not wedded to a narrow ‘internal brakes’, as suggested in previous CREST- definition of fascism, but they do believe that funded research (https://crestresearch.ac.uk/ fascism is qualitatively different from all other projects/internal-brakes-on-violent-escalation/). forms of politics in that it is exceptional in its threat and use of violence. ● The aforementioned conclusions are borne out with regards to not only the street activism of ● Militant anti-fascists do not see ‘fascism’ militant anti-fascist groups but also their digital everywhere and generally retain their focus on the activism. On their websites, blogs and social media accounts, the form of ‘direct action’ most 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: KEY POINTS AND RISK MATRIX CREST Report commonly engaged in by anti-fascist groups is threat. Unlike the US, the militant anti-fascist ‘doxing’: publicising information about far-right movement is rarely discussed in this country in activists in the hope that this will result in legal relation to public debates on ‘violent extremism’. It or economic consequences for the individual. is not subject to the same levels of disinformation, These digital platforms also offer the opportunity rumour, hysteria, and moral panic that could for different groups to forge networks. However, trigger vigilante action by the far right, and in turn, these networks are largely solidaristic rather than encourage more militant responses. organisational in nature (both within their own ● On both sides of the Atlantic, the most likely national settings and trans-nationally). risk in terms of the escalation of violence from ● The respective histories of militant anti-fascism in the sub-lethal to lethal rests with impressionable both the US and Britain reveal a long-term trend individuals imbibed with anti-fascism’s de- towards promoting greater public participation at humanisation of the far right. This is the individual protest events. However, there remains an obvious who might lack the framework of restraint, who tension between broadening the base of opposition might only loosely associate with a militant anti- to ‘fascism’ and retaining group coherence and fascist group, and who is motivated entirely by militancy. Nonetheless, the direction of travel is not their hostile response to ‘fascism’ as an egregious towards the formation of clandestine, underground and abhorrent injustice. cells. There is little evidence