Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook by Mark Bray

Dec 29, 2017 Jason Gordon rated it it was amazing

A word of warning to those who want to read this book: do not watch the television interviews. They do not do the book any justice whatsoever.

Here are a number of things I liked about the book:

1). It provides a comprehensive history of anti-fascism in the Western world. When the book discusses anti-fascism in America, it places it squarely in the anti-racist resistance against the Jim Crow South (which is indeed a fascist regime). Mark Bray also discusses anti-fascism in the West in the contex ...more

flag 35 likes · Like · see review

Dec 06, 2017 Conor rated it really liked it

Shelves: history, self-help

When I first picked this up, this was my "Eat, Pray, Love" on the subway: what do the two have in common, you ask? Well what better way to get your groove back than frolicking through India and Europe giving fascists whatfor!

Just kidding. They do not (I assume) have anything in common; rather, I felt some embarrassment
about being seen reading it on the subway, and so would contort my hands in such a way that it would be near impossible for anyone to descry the cover. Partially this is because When I first picked this up, this was my "Eat, Pray, Love" on the subway: what do the two have in common, you ask? Well what better way to get your groove back than frolicking through India and Europe giving fascists whatfor!

Just kidding. They do not (I assume) have anything in common; rather, I felt some embarrassment
about being seen reading it on the subway, and so would contort my hands in such a way that it would be near impossible for anyone to descry the cover. Partially this is because the "movement" has been discredited as some sort of left-wing version of the pallid, amoral, virginal, keyboard-warriors of alt-right. But mostly because I had an image of antifa as black-clad paramilitants and this contrasted sharply with the jaunty scarves and light, lambswool sweaters I've been wearing during this uncommonly balmy winter we've been having.

For the most part the shame was directed from without--liberal colleagues would snicker, raise eyebrows, etc. And perhaps some of you reading this feel the same way. But I think this really just goes to show how successful conservative voices are at manipulating narratives to bestow false senses of equivalency.

Part of it also owes to the left's ineptitude when it comes to branding: as I'm sure you all know, "Antifa" stands for "anti-fascism," a pretty reasonable position to take, especially given the previous century of violence kindled in fascist conflagrations. But I don't think the general public really does know that, and so the group needlessly forfeits its crucial historical legacy.

When I reserved this book I personally was most interested in the "no platforming" issue. Perhaps it's my time spent working for the ACLU, but I'd always taken the Millian/Jeffersonian approach to free speech, whereby any idea should be tolerated and allowed to live or die on its own merits. I would tell people that it's the one thing the United States does better than other countries, and our gift to the world. Post-Charlottesville I really had to reevaluate this position, and I remember having a conversation about the incompatibility between First Amendment rights and Second Amendment rights the day before the ACLU changed its position to no longer represent free speech claims if the claimants were armed (I support their change of heart, despite supporting strong free speech rights). Additionally, we have to wonder whether free speech principles require a platform for ideas that have been thoroughly debunked already, which raises the question of whether idiots such as Milo Yiannopoulos are owed one for what amounts to Flat Earth "ideas" about women, trans people, immigrants, Muslims, etc.

But where does that leave private assembly? The idea of free speech under the First Amendment tends to be poorly understood by the public; in reality, it only applies to government censorship, which is why there's no Constitutional issue when some celebrity says something idiotic and then the public, exercising its speech through its dollars, decides to boycott that product until the celebrity bonehead endorser is dropped from the sponsorship deal. So this is why there is no issue when a private university disinvites someone purely on the content of their speech, or why fascists are free to meet in their own homes and discuss the most vile ideas, organizing anything they want short of open insurrection. When we talk about those types of free speech, we are talking about the "value" of free speech, which is one of many liberal values that we all (or almost all) claim to cherish. But because there is no legal/Constitutional component, this value merely rests in equipoise with other liberal values, such as: the importance of voting and representation, welcoming of diversity, the equality of all people, representation by the people, safety and ability to earn a living, etc. These are things that fascists oppose for all but a minority of the population. And so fascist ideas will always exist where there is free speech, even as free speech will always be threatened to the extent that fascist ideas are not kept in check in the theoretical world. Hence: antifa.

The question of how much non-violent intervention (glitter bombing, throwing ballbearings upon march routes, drowning out fascist messaging with song, threatening the job security of fascists, etc.), coercion, doxxing, and violence is necessary, and in what proportions, is the thorny one. As an important caveat, it is critical to mention that liberal values and governmental failsafes utterly failed to prevent fascism before, and so the idea that the government or people's good will should save us is painfully naive. But the gnashing of teeth comes about because we worry, rightly, over the slippery slope when we (again rightly) seek to quell fascist rhetoric and action.

And here I think is the best thing I took away from the book: not a complete, absolutist prohibition on violence, not an exact formula for conquering fascism, but rather one historical truth, which is that antifa exists only as a reaction to creeping fascism. It has never taken over a government, and it has never mushroomed into a PC police state. And just as we don't wring our hands and decide not to fight forest fires because oh-my-god-what-if-it-gets-out-of-control-and-we-end-up-with-firefighters-putting-out-our-campfires, we have no reason to believe that antifa poses any threat outside of the immediate metastasis of fascism that it forms in reaction to.

So please read this book. The first half is somewhat dry history, but the second is practical, interesting, and thought-provoking. And for the love of god educate and push back on those, especially on the left, who have a knee-jerk skepticism about this complex and important phenomenon, because we live in precarious times. ...more

flag 27 likes · Like · see review

Oct 25, 2017 Leo Robertson rated it liked it

The partisan approach had limited appeal.

I didn't know that anti-fascists think of themselves as disbanding once the fascist problem is taken care of. That would be cool, because it would support a "they started it" argument. But because I know the author would like to promote anti-fascism, I'm not inclined to believe him (at least every time) when he says in his narrative that anti-fascist action is the reason for fascists disbanding. Or even that the fascists did disband. The author admits the ...more

flag 14 likes · Like · see review

Sep 26, 2017 Connor Bulgrin rated it did not like it

This book provides an insiders perspective on the history, tactics, and ideological roots of Antifa. Although some of its actions are harmless (printing pamphlets, peaceful protests, covering graffiti, etc) most of its work is self-refuting political violence and censorship that can only be compared to the actions of the groups the so much detest: the nazis and neo-nazis.

The first two chapters provide a history of Antifa in Europe and America from pre-WWII to today. Through the WWII era Antifa h This book provides an insiders perspective on the history, tactics, and ideological roots of Antifa. Although some of its actions are harmless (printing pamphlets, peaceful protests, covering graffiti, etc) most of its work is self-refuting political violence and censorship that can only be compared to the actions of the groups the so much detest: the nazis and neo-nazis.

The first two chapters provide a history of Antifa in Europe and America from pre-WWII to today. Through the WWII era Antifa has a necessary and relevant position- an opposition to the violent, racist, genocidal nazi movement in Germany and Italy that was threatening (and did) gain power in other nations.

So what happens when naziism essentially disappears and becomes politically irrelevant. Well, we just have to call the new right fascists. This is the tactic Antifa has employed since the fall of true fascism. (This is, in fact, a criticism that Bray points out, but does not address at all, on page 53.) Are Donald Trump, Ann Coulter, and Milo Yiannopoulous fascists who need not be allowed to speak? Since they pose no violent threat against anybody and are not even attempting to initiate violence on their behalf (besides Trump's defense of assault at his rallies which is, clearly, detestable) this answer should be clear. Since they pose no violent threat, let's address the 2 reasons given in this book why they should not be allowed to speak: 1. The rejection of free speech and 2. The potential consequences of their anti-Islam/feminist rhetoric.

Mark Bray first points out that free speech is not about individuals against individuals, but about the protection of the individual's free speech from the government action. This definition is accurate and really cannot be used against Antifa's no-platforming and violent tactics. However, Bray also recognizes free speech is largely an ethical position; we allow people to speak because we too would like to speak freely. He then goes on to say that people "with the wrong politics" can and should have their speech stopped. This basically allows free speech to only those who can gather a large enough mob and these very same tactics can be employed against Antifa, BLM, or any other movement that does not have overwhelming popular support. Bray is basically using the argument that Might makes Right. This argument is incredibly flimsy; the only political figures in history who have worked so hard to contest open free speech have been those with the worst ideas: Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, etc. Lastly, Bray claims that Antifa is more in favor of free speech than your typical liberal. If that is the case (which I disagree) it is only because they are always ready to incite violence.

On to the second point: Trump, Milo, and Ann must be stopped from speaking because their speech promotes anti-Islam and anti-feminist thinking (or Islamaphobia and misogony, if you'd rather.) First we'll look at Islam and why these three speakers are so against Syrian refugees and muslim immigration. There are clear problems with Islam as an ideology. Extremism is dangerously common (more than the average leftist would care to admit.) When Pew (in 2004) went to muslim nations and asked, "Is suicide bombing in defense of Islam ever justifiable?" We get these results: Lebanon: 82% Yes. Nigeria: 66% yes. Jordan: 65% yes. Even Turkey, Europe's Europe's of modernized Islam comes in at 20% yes. It is also noteworthy that Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and other nations were not included in this poll as it was considered too dangerous to collect date there, however, there is no doubt if we could've Lebanon would have lost its number 1 spot. It's unlikely that these numbers have greatly changes, since Islam has not changed. The rampant sexual attacks in Europe by migrants should also show us the risk of refugees and economic migrants who pose as refugees. We should also observe that we have statements from Cologne police (after the Cologne sex attacks on Jan 1 2016) that they did not want to identify arabs as the attackers in fear of either promoting racism or appearing as racists themselves. We now have police in Europe afraid to address Islamic sexual violence because they could be called Islamophobic. Clearly, Islam has given us plenty to fear. I will cover anti-feminist speech much more briefly (as feminism promotes far fewer problems and I wrote much more than I thought I would about Islam.) Ideas of patriarchy, misogony, and rape culture (like all ideas) deserve to be questioned. However, any questioning of these ideas is labelled sexist. The feminists of Antifa would be much quicker to realize the 'sexism' of chivalry, before they dared to look at the mistreatment of women in the Middle East and identify it as a cause of Islamic principles. Overall, all ideas deserve to be questioned and if you are against this questioning, ask yourself why. If an idea is so horribly wrong it will be easily refuted and most people will abandon it. Bad ideas only survive through political indoctrination (This would be religion and extremism) or ignorance. We are lucky enough to be a country that has decent education and media, so our only true enemy is political indoctrination and Antifa only contributes to the problem by creating their own ideologues. Free speech is an ethical principle first and if we can't allow everyone to have it, we can either 1. Let the mob decide (who will eventually make a dangerous choice which we will all regret) or 2. allow it to nobody.

Lastly, I'd like to address Bray's claim that Antifa works on behalf of the oppressed or working class.
Has Antifa protected migrant centers? Yes and they can only be applauded for these efforts, however, they also tear down the cities and campuses of those they claim to be helping. When Antifa burns down building and cities because of something that offended them they destroy the businesses, homes, and government property of those they claim to help. These damages will be repaid by the working class, either directly or through tax dollars. For the working class, who may feel Antifa is one of your only options, I'll tell you this: The enemy of your enemy is not your friend. You need somebody to fight conservatism, white supremacy , and (if you think it still exists in the U.S.) fascism for you. Do not rely on these extremists. There are alternatives: populist politicians, volunteer groups, community service, IGOs. Do not ally yourselves with those that will fight alongside you one day, but burn down your city the next; they are only interested in a fight, not your best interest.

In conclusion, this book provides an interesting history of the Antifa movement, however, it's pure ideological nonsense. If you are still unconvinced, feel free to observe the historical successes of marxism, (there are none.) a college campus when another controversial speaker comes to town, or best of all read this book and learn what this group has to say for itself. Bray strongly objects to those who wish to label Antifa a terrorist group, however, I urge you to read the U.S. code of Federal Regulations' definition of terrorism and decide for yourself whether Antifa falls under that definition. It defines terrorism as: "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." ...more

flag 13 likes · Like · see review

Nov 30, 2017 Kaelan Ratcliffe▪Κάϊλαν Ράτκλιφ▪كايِلان راتكِليف rated it it was amazing

Shelves: activism, anarchism-libertarian, anti-semitism, class, colonialism-imperialism, fascism, history, politics, political-science, race

"Never Again!"

I've linked a very lively interview at the bottom of this review between the author of this book Mark Bray, and journalist / author Chris Hedges on his show On Contact. As the reader might imagine, it was on Antifa, political violence and the current climate in the American political hemisphere. My conclusion after watching the debate was unexpected. Frankly, despite being a big fan of Hedges, I felt his experience in war zones as a foreign correspondent - and the subsequent dif "Never Again!"

I've linked a very lively interview at the bottom of this review between the author of this book Mark Bray, and journalist / author Chris Hedges on his show On Contact. As the reader might imagine, it was on Antifa, political violence and the current climate in the American political hemisphere. My conclusion after watching the debate was unexpected. Frankly, despite being a big fan of Hedges, I felt his experience in war zones as a foreign correspondent - and the subsequent difficulty he faced afterward from being in such environments - had created a binary way of him seeing the topic (ironically binary, black and white ways of viewing the world being something Hedges really made me aware of through his work) and as a result, had blinded him from considering the multifaceted shades of grey this issue contains. I would encourage readers to watch it and decide for themselves.

In opposition, I felt Bray defended the topic quite well, and as a result, his clear knowledge on the subject interested me enough to pick this up at a book fair in London soon after.

Ultimately, I'm glad I did read this text, as Bray does a really good job of balancing the 200 or so pages of The Anti-Facist Handbook with a brief rundown of the history of Anti-fascist resistance, addressing common arguments against Antifa tactics, as well as strategies used by various segments of the movements around the globe. It's by no means an exhaustive work on the topic, as Bray states himself in the introduction, but his effort on this still packs a hell of a punch, and he really hits his stride when combating arguments made against the movements over the years. It's pretty hard to make sweeping claims after reading this.

I won't go into how I feel specifically about the topic, but if anyone decides to read this book in full, then I can state I stand pretty close to Bray regarding the nuances, and shades of grey each situation poses for those who take a stand against far-right figures. It doesn't always mean violence. Believe me, after you've read this, you'll understand that fact too.

https://youtu.be/5IrV9iWyxfs ...more

flag 13 likes · Like · see review

Sep 04, 2017 TR Peterson rated it really liked it

A good overview of anti-fascist movements over the years up to and including Antifa in the US today. The author also looks at arguments about violence, free speech and no platforming as well. He clearly outlines how liberal notions of free speech are not ones that Antifa adheres to and why. It is written from a pro-Antifa perspective which one may or may not agree with but you do get a very clear understanding of their views and where they come from. A very timely book. 4 of 5 stars.

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Sep 07, 2017 Alexandra rated it really liked it

Shelves: history, non-fiction

Essential reading--not just a history but a wealth of ideas and inspiration for the future.

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Sep 26, 2017 Tonstant Weader rated it liked it

I wanted to read Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook by historian Mark Bray because I am conflicted by Antifa. On the one hand, every human being who aspires to morality and decency must be anti-fascist. On the other hand, violence other than in self-defense is an immoral tactic. It is also strategically wrong. However, I wanted to understand how they perceived this moral dilemma.

The first chapters are a history of the anti-fascist movement. This resembles nothing so much as a military campaign hi ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Sep 08, 2018 Lucas rated it it was ok

To be honest, I was expecting a somewhat more intellectually sophisticated defense of Antifa actions and philosophy. The book displays too few new contents, and I feel free to skip several parts that presented some well-known facts about the twentieth century.
I was more interested in the Antifa views regarding free speech and violence. The argument for violence is grounded in the historical fact that on several occasions fascists used the current legal system to take power. I think this argumen ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Jan 25, 2018 Mrs. Europaea rated it really liked it

Bray sheds new light and understanding on a highly misunderstood and represented movement. Antifa gets misrepresented through the media and often times through it's own members and this disinformation spreads like wildfire casting a very negative view on what is ultimately a positive movement for the freedoms of all people.

That said, Bray states several times that the book was rushed because they wanted to get the information out there as soon as possible in this current political climate under ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Aug 20, 2017 Owlseyes on notre dame, it's so strange a 15-hour blaze and... marked it as to-read

Shelves: antifascism-in-usa, terror, not-for-white-males, white-privilege, black-first, american-second, one-world-government, violence, europe-and-usa, black-bloc

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Aug 28, 2017 Jason Crane rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Smart and thorough overview of historical and modern anti-fascism, with a view toward dispelling myths and offering a counter to mainstream thinking.

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Jul 20, 2018 Roxana rated it it was amazing

This is a must read for those who take the struggle against capitalism, patriarchy, transphobia, and racism, seriously. After tracing the history of fascism and antifascism throughout Europe and, to a smaller degree, the US, Mark Bray points to five historical lessons:

1)Fascist revolutions have never succeeded. Fascists gained power legally.

2)To varying degrees, many interwar antifa leaders and theorists assumed that fascism was simply a variant of traditional counterrevolutionary politics. Th This is a must read for those who take the struggle against capitalism, patriarchy, transphobia, and racism, seriously. After tracing the history of fascism and antifascism throughout Europe and, to a smaller degree, the US, Mark Bray points to five historical lessons:

1)Fascist revolutions have never succeeded. Fascists gained power legally.

2)To varying degrees, many interwar antifa leaders and theorists assumed that fascism was simply a variant of traditional counterrevolutionary politics. They didn't take it seriously enough until it was too late.

3)For ideological and organizational reasons, socialists and communists leadership was often slower to accurately assess the threat of fascism, and slower to advocate militant antifa responses, than their parties rank and file memberships.

4) Fascism steals from left ideology, strategy, imagery, and culture.

5)It doesn't take that many fascists to make fascism.

He then responds to common criticisms and misconceptions about antifa.
In regards to free speech, Bray writes, "Instead of privileging allegedly "neutral" universal rights, antifascists prioritize the political project of destroying fascism and protecting the vulnerable regardless of whether their actions are considered violations of the free speech of fascists or not," (p.144). He describes how important "free speech" is to the US government when faced with movements, such as the Black Panthers and BLM, that threaten their hegemony and which suffered under acute repression, surveillance, assaults, and murder at the hands of the authorities. Bray points to ways in which people already disqualify "universal" and objective free speech to those who are undocumented, incarcerated, and during times of war, etc..He also points to Citizens United which perfectly illustrates the tension between "free speech" and big money. Antifa refuse to "pin their hopes for the freedom and security of humanity on processes of public discourse that have already shown themselves to be fallible," after the failure to stop fascism in the past century through legal means (p.148). Antifa are not against free speech in the abstract, they are against those who use their (contested) right to promote genocide or to question people's humanity.

In regards to the "slippery slope" and the "who decides" argument, Bray answers that this question should not be understood in abstract. "Efforts to deny a platform to fascists did not emerge from random individuals suddenly deciding that they disagreed with fascists and therefore wanted to silence them. Rather, they grew out of the historic struggle, often waged in self-defence, of movements of leftists-jews, people of color, Muslims, queer and trans people, and others, to make sure that fascists do not grow powerful enough to murder them," (p. 156). Bray points out how, historically, antifa organizing declines as local fascist organizing declines so there is no group of people who organize and decide to shut others down all those who disagree with them. It just doesn't happen. The liberal alternative is to let free ideas, police, and government to prevent fascism. This has failed on notable occassions. Bray says the more convincing "slippery slope" argument that actually does have historical evidence is to say, "that allowing fascism to develop and expand runs the documented risk of sliding into 'totalitarianism'," (p.158).

Bray also confronts the issue of mass movements vs. militant antifascism: "Rather than imposing what is essentially an electoral mindset of appealing to the lowest common denominator in relation to the fascist threat, antifascists prioritize working with marginal communities to neutralize any potential threats, whether it's popular with 'the majority' or not,. This perspective is especially important in antifascist work given the historical fact that those who have suffered the most under fascistic regimes have not had the backing of most of the rest of society," (p.202).

Other important lessons from this book were:
-Most of the organizing done by antifascists is non-violent (making calls, leafleting, protesting, etc). Antifa believe in a diversity of tactics.
-The vast majority of antifa are revolutionary socialists. "Antifascism is a pan revolutionary left politics applied to fighting the Far Right."
-Antifa recognize the need to transcend subculture politics by building popular movements. It is extremely common to find antifa who are also involved with organizing around workplace issues, immigration, etc..
-Most importantly, Antifa is necessary, but it is not enough. We need to put forth a revolutionary alternative that can create a new world in the shell of the old.
...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Nov 28, 2017 Dave rated it really liked it · review of another edition

This probably shouldn't be called a "handbook." It's not so much a how-to thing as it is an explanation to an audience that's unlikely to join in. That's fine though. I think most people interested in this book would rather it be that way. Antifa's been in the news a lot lately and it's been misrepresented to the point of being treated as the name of one activist group when it's really just a way to describe many diverse groups who oppose fascism. A lot of these groups are explicitly anarchist o This probably shouldn't be called a "handbook." It's not so much a how-to thing as it is an explanation to an audience that's unlikely to join in. That's fine though. I think most people interested in this book would rather it be that way. Antifa's been in the news a lot lately and it's been misrepresented to the point of being treated as the name of one activist group when it's really just a way to describe many diverse groups who oppose fascism. A lot of these groups are explicitly anarchist or socialist or anti-capitalist, and a lot of them are willing to use violent tactics, but working in some way to prevent/end fascism is the only real requirement for being called antifa. When it comes to understanding this diversity I think this book does a good job, just don't expect a step by step strategy guide for revolution or something.

It's pretty scary how stupid most of the discussions about this topic are in the media. I hear so many people saying things like "if you use violence then you're just as bad as they are" and "antifa are the real fascists." The Left has just been so relentlessly bombarded with these naïve messages about what it is to be "the good guy" that they can't even consider the possibility that well thought out arguments won't reach the types of people who voted for Donald Trump. You can use all the statistics and visual aids that you want to but if the audience you're talking to isn't using reason then it doesn't matter how clear and eloquent you make yourself. The difference between good people and bad people isn't IF they fight or IF they hate but WHY they fight and WHAT they hate. And being tolerant of everything isn't necessarily a good thing when you take it to the ridiculous extreme of tolerating intolerance. Intolerance is essentially what fascism is and that is why being intolerant of it shouldn't be equated with other forms of intolerance. It's one thing to allow small groups to avoid certain crowds when they have weird beliefs but when they explicitly state a desire to hunt down and kill anyone who doesn't share their beliefs or their ancestry then they need to be treated as a threat. Not doing so is like using cultural diversity as an excuse for protecting imperialist cultures that destroy other cultures. It makes absolutely no sense!

The Right's criticisms, not too surprisingly, are even more ridiculous. They scream about freedom of speech despite being the ones most guilty of trying to restrict it. Trump bitches about how the "liberal media" should be charged with slander for criticisms that are mostly accurate while he abets the Right's blatant lies about Obama's birth certificate, spreads propaganda about the supposed threat liberals are to police (they've actually been safer under Obama's presidency than any time in the last few decades), claims Obama is the one responsible for the national debt crisis (the deficit fell precipitously for most of his presidency, leveling off at about the same point it's been for decades before Bush let it explode, and Trump is already showing signs of raising the deficit himself), pushing conspiracy theories about Antifa being the masterminds behind the Las Vegas shooting massacre (claiming it was a false flag attack to demonize guns, even though most antifa groups aren't against gun ownership) and countless lies about the Clintons that aren't even worth getting into. They also inaccurately use words like "socialist", "communist", "terrorist", "anti-Semite", "thug", and "freeloading parasite" to describe left wingers while decrying the supposedly unfair use of the word "fascist" for themselves (Fascism is defined in my dictionary as "a government system characterized by nationalism, regimentation, rigid censorship and suppression of opposition." Maybe you can still argue that we're not quite there yet but can anyone really deny how blatantly these scumbags are trying to push us in that direction?).

There are a lot of assumptions on the Left that need to be challenged too: the idea that "free speech" should be protected at all costs, that democracy is the only way to run a free society, that there's no rational reason for law abiding citizens to arm themselves, that new scientific knowledge justifies the atrocities of modern technology and globalization, that good inevitably will prevail over evil... Most of their philosophy at least sounds nice compared to the insanity of the Right but it's still based more on faith than reason. I just can't stand hearing things like "Antifa is a gift to the extreme Right" from Noam Chomsky and others. I understand the argument that the Left would be outgunned in a physical struggle but that's sort of the problem. We're choosing to be defenseless in order to stay consistent with a bullshit philosophy. It doesn't take much for the Right to play victim anyway. Any little anecdotal incident results in Fox News claiming that the entire Left has declared war on all conservatives. ANYTHING! Do you really think you can prevent every bit of backlash against groups like the KKK from those whose lives are threatened by them? These incidents don't play into their hands any more than a refusal to fight does. I would argue that these hate groups are mainly gaining power because they feel so comfortable out in the open at this point. In any sane society you should feel terrified of letting others know that you consider black people and gays to be subhuman or that you don't give a shit about destroying the environment for future generations. Similarly, if your job is to protect polluters and white collar criminals from their indignant victims while ruining the lives of people who use cannabis then you shouldn't be comfortable letting anyone know that's what you do every day. You should be terrified of the consequences for such disgusting behavior. The fact that they're so comfortable just shows how ineffective and nonthreatening mainstream activism has become.

Sometimes it just seems like part of the entropy of the universe that evil always wins. They have the advantage of not having to be scrupulous with their decisions. Being responsible requires a lot more careful thought and procrastination before acting, which makes it impossible for the good guys to get as much done as those who just follow their whims without considering consequences. I wouldn't say that this justifies us ignoring all scruples but we should at least reevaluate some of our assumptions about what makes us the good guys. I'm personally of the opinion that most of our effort should go towards the root cause of these problems: the economic system's imperative to grow. The pressure for infinite growth is what led to so much hate, as well as so many other problems, and what continues to fuel it. Mark Bray points out himself that hate groups see huge surges in recruitment during economic downturns, when people are frustrated and easily misled into blaming some easy target. Men who are out of work and feeling pathetic and desperate are particularly susceptible to adopting these hateful philosophies, finding them to provide some sense of purpose in their lives and somewhere that they can feel they belong. There are a lot of alternative economic systems that would limit these pressures. Of course this doesn't mean that we'll just all make this decision and wake up tomorrow in a better world, or that some sort of green socialist system for the whole world should even be the ultimate goal. It will take time for things to change and therefore the types of tactics described in this book will still be necessary to defend those who are most threatened. Totally rejecting all "violent" tactics will only make us less effective. It's basically like fighting an enemy with one arm tied behind your back. Anyone who doesn't understand that should definitely read this book, as well as others like Deep Green Resistance, This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed, A People's History of the United States, etc. ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Nov 19, 2017 Peter Mcloughlin rated it really liked it

Shelves: 00002both, 1890-1959, 1960-to-1989, 1990-to-2019, american-history, coldwar, complexity, european-history, first-world-war, general-history

Antifa is too militant for me and probably too left as well. I understand their motivation and they make a few good points about platforming hate speech which liberals should pay attention free speech doesn't mean giving the widest audience to odious views. Institutions like universities are under no obligation to host far right and alt-right speakers. Some of the methods that fascists take over liberal states are also of concern especially if they get power they destroy those states and vulnera ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Sep 04, 2017 James rated it really liked it

You get what it says.

Antifa is a history of the Anti-Facist movement and puts into perspective the history, politics and organizing behind it. It gives a stronger context of its place in past and current politics and answers many current questions being asked of Antifa and gives some perspective on what free speech means in a greater context.

Bray pulls no punches on the side he's taking or partisanship, however if you are interested in understanding many sides of the current climate it's an im ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Feb 07, 2018 Ali Benam rated it it was amazing

Thorough and well written. Definitely a must-read.

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Dec 28, 2017 Hampton Stall rated it it was amazing

mark bray, as good as always

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jul 26, 2018 Brian rated it it was ok

Shelves: history, politics, did-not-finish

As other reviews have pointed out, this is not a ‘handbook’ per se but a history of antifascism in the 20th and 21st century. I wholeheartedly believe in the importance of antifascism, and its history is something that should get more attention, but the book does not read well. There’s no narrative voice to speak of, just a constant listing of events. This happened then that happened. Later that happened then this happened. It makes for a very dry, and sadly, boring and difficult read. A for con ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Dec 05, 2017 Cat rated it it was ok

I won a copy of this book on Goodreads and honestly tried to read it, but just couldn't I tired quickly of the intolerance.... Sorry. I am sure someone else will enjoy it, just not me. I thought it would explain the movement, and it did, I just ceased to care... But I have given a fair review of it in my opinion.

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Dec 01, 2017 Joseph Valoren rated it really liked it

It’s impossible to write a review of this book without first obviating where one stands on the issues it concerns, as to not do this would be an act of supreme disingenuousness. We live in a modern age in which all things are political, but nothing cuts to the quick more divisively and meaningfully in our culture that where one stands on the subject of fascism.

So to get it out of the way, let me state up front that I’ve been unequivocally antifascist since well before fascism had returned as a It’s impossible to write a review of this book without first obviating where one stands on the issues it concerns, as to not do this would be an act of supreme disingenuousness. We live in a modern age in which all things are political, but nothing cuts to the quick more divisively and meaningfully in our culture that where one stands on the subject of fascism.

So to get it out of the way, let me state up front that I’ve been unequivocally antifascist since well before fascism had returned as a realistic threat. My earliest teenage memories include getting into fights with skinhead punks outside punk shows in rural northern California and of taking part in protests, marching, and organizing. I am in no uncertain terms a politically active, far left democratic socialist and I read this book specifically because I wanted to know more about the history of anti-fascism, what I could do in the present to make more effective use of my political power as a citizen, and because the politics of resistance fascinate me from an anthropological perspective.

Bray’s book begins with an exhaustive (but somewhat rushed) history of anti-fascism. Within the context of the book, the author apologizes for the somewhat rough (and Eurocentric) treatment of material, citing that European revolutionary thought is his realm of academic expertise and that he consciously eschewed a comprehensive treatment of the material in the interest of making the work available to the general public faster. I don’t take issue with this conceptually, but the first few chapters of the book following the introduction are a little dry. And I say that as somebody who generally enjoys reading history. So much of what is described in these chapters read like itemized descriptions of individual skirmishes within the context of a greater war, probably because that is precisely what is being described. This information has utility, and is occasionally inspiring, but fails to command one’s attention. I imagine it was tempting to ascribe some form of narrative to this recounting of historical events, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Bray considered and consciously rejected this idea. Framing these individual incidences in a context outside of antifascist action might run the risk of attaching some other agenda or meaning behind those actions, and I understand why the author would want to avoid that. Nevertheless, this adherence to realistic, straightforward depictions of events simply lacked for a certain vivre.

The real heart of the book is its latter half, after the preemptory throat-clearing of explaining the history of anti-fascism, in which the author discusses the philosophical underpinnings of the movement, critiques and discusses the efficacy of methods of anti-fascism, interviews and elaborates upon contemporary antifascist efforts, and provides practical advice for current and would be antifascists – hence “handbook”. In the section, the book shines, interrogating the methods, ideology, and actions of antifascists in a way that comes across as sober and realistic without giving ground to proponents or apologists for fascist ideology. Reading this half of the book provided me with scholarly, well-reasoned answers to questions that I have posed to myself and have been the subject of consistent debate within the leftist sphere and refreshed my outdated understanding of the current environment.

Overall, I think this is a valuable book for everybody to read. If you already sympathize with the goals of antifa, this book will prove illuminating as a historical lesson and a practical guide for continuing action. If you believe that fascism is not on the rise and do not see merit in antifascist activities, I would encourage you to read it and see if you still agree after acquainting yourself with Bray’s arguments. And if you are a fascist, or a fascist sympathizer, while I do not think that you would ever voluntarily read this book, I do wonder if you could read this book and come away with your values undaunted, or have any retort to the arguments made within that does not reduce to simple prejudice.

Bray states throughout this volume that he does not mean for it to be comprehensive, but rather, one of a few opening salvos in a new wave of academic interest and further inquiry into a topic whose time has once again come. I genuinely hope he’s right about that. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Oct 23, 2017 James Klagge rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: contemporary-issues, history

I found this book at a propitious time, shortly after I got back from the counter-protest to the alt-right rally in Charlottesville in August. That was my first experience with antifa. This is an excellent book to learn about antifa--although it is not an unbiased report. In fact it is written by an antifa sympathizer who is also a "scholar" of the movement. The author draws on many personal interviews with antifa activists to supplement a careful history and survey of the movement. But the book I found this book at a propitious time, shortly after I got back from the counter-protest to the alt-right rally in Charlottesville in August. That was my first experience with antifa. This is an excellent book to learn about antifa--although it is not an unbiased report. In fact it is written by an antifa sympathizer who is also a "scholar" of the movement. The author draws on many personal interviews with antifa activists to supplement a careful history and survey of the movement. But the book also advocates for resistance to fascism.
Antifa is a label for a wide variety of groups that actively resist manifestations of fascism around the world. It is not an organization to which groups belong. Perhaps you could say "antifa" is more an adjective than a noun. In Charlottesville there were no groups calling themselves antifa, but there were at least two groups, Redneck Revolt and IWW (Industrial Workers of the World), who fit the bill. I would characterize antifa as groups who are willing to engage in violence to resist fascist behavior. In Charlottesville Redneck Revolt members carried wooden poles and semi-automatic rifles. The only violence I witnessed was a clash between a small group carrying confederate flags and a larger group of RR. An RR member swiped a flag and made off with it, another RR member got snatched trying to grab a flag and a melee ensued with those on both sides whacking each other with poles. It lasted a couple minutes. The flag bearers were outnumbered and retreated. This was a manifestation of the antifa slogan of "no platform" for fascists. When fascists try to spread their message, antifa will try to disrupt that. Thus, they can be seen as opponents of free speech for fascists. They will also try to disrupt fascist gatherings. This is what happened in Charlottesville. The alt-right had permission to use Emancipation Park as a gathering place for their demonstration at noon. Antifa groups arrived earlier and occupied the space and wouldn't leave. That led to various clashes, and the police dispersed the demonstration before it began. The antifa succeeded in the sense that they did not allow the alt-right an unimpeded platform for spreading their message.
It might seem wrong to shut down free speech when it is just speech. I think I believe that. But antifa see speech as just the first step in a dangerous slippery slope toward worse, so they resist as early as they can (p. 141): "Since the future is unwritten, and fascism often emerges out of small, marginal groups [as it did before WWII], every fascist or white supremacist group should be treated as if they could be...Hitler's first stepping stone." One antifa put it this way (p. 169): "You fight them by writing letters and making phone calls so you don't have to fight them with fists. You fight them with fists so you don't have to fight them with knives. You fight them with knives so you don't have to fight them with guns. You fight them with guns so you don't have to fight them with tanks." We all know the poetic lament:
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
In response to that, when Trump's Muslim travel ban was announced, antifa protesters proclaimed (p. 207):
"First they came for the Muslims, and we said 'Not This Time Motherfuckers!'"
As for my own experience of the antifa groups in Charlottesville, I have to say that I was glad that they were there. The police notoriously did not keep the peace, and it seemed very much to me that what peace there was stemmed from the deterrent effect of the aggressive and armed antifa. That is not how I will engage fascism, but I appreciate that at least in that context, the antifa were what allowed me to engage fascism the way I did. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Feb 27, 2018 Shawn Birss rated it really liked it

Shelves: 2018-nonfiction, politics

Though it reads as hastily written (basing most of the history on popcorn accounts from very few sources, especially from the music scene) and incomplete (missing almost all history of antifa resistance outside of Western Europe and the United States) this book is still probably the most comprehensive and in depth report on the history of antifa action as a popular movement that has yet been gathered. It is interesting reading, especially for anyone interested in the rise of skinhead culture dur Though it reads as hastily written (basing most of the history on popcorn accounts from very few sources, especially from the music scene) and incomplete (missing almost all history of antifa resistance outside of Western Europe and the United States) this book is still probably the most comprehensive and in depth report on the history of antifa action as a popular movement that has yet been gathered. It is interesting reading, especially for anyone interested in the rise of skinhead culture during the second wave of punk. It is encouraging for anyone who wants to take seriously the threat of neofascist groups today.

I was glad to find the author confront the issue of violence in antifa action. Though his perspective was a little more liberal than I would have preferred, he does argue for tolerating a diversity of tactics, and judging each action rather than the method itself. His careful tone here will likely make the book more accessible to the curious reader first introduced to the history. I would have appreciated a little more about the philosophy of how targeted, intentional violent acts can be a useful tool in this struggle in particular.

Helpful too would have been a section outlining exactly what fascism is and how it can be identified in different contexts. For example, how do we know that a government or culture is beginning to show signs of fascism before we see white dudes in polo shirts shouting in the streets with tiki torches. By not being precise in his use of the word fascism, the clarity in describing anti-fascism is also muddied.

In truth, I hope that we can one day read a longer and more complete account of antifa organizing that includes more examples of people of colour outside of Western Europe and The United States. South America has stories that would be relevant, as would Eastern Europe. But for a start in getting the story of antifa into the mainstream, this book does its job. I will definitely be getting a copy for myself, and for my union's library.

☠

Trade Paperback, First
Melville House Publishing, September 2017

Four Stars

February 24-27, 2018

☠ ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Dec 15, 2017 Michael rated it really liked it

This is a really good book for anyone unfamiliar with Antifa, especially those who think they just appeared with the rise of Trump. The first part of the book deals with the general history of Antifa from the Western perspective and provides an explanation of why it was formed, what kind of people formed it, and what they wanted to accomplish and how. It really helps to provide a legitimacy to a movement that is frequently belittled and misunderstood in the press. I especially enjoyed Bray's tie ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Oct 27, 2017 Trashy Dreams rated it really liked it · review of another edition

First two sections were informative, but a pretty dry history of anti-fascist groups dating back to the late 1800's. The subsequent chapters were a little more direct in content, and serve as strategic talking/reference points. I feel weird about this being a "handbook," but Bray is a legit source, and is good about keeping the content informative while not pushing his agenda. So it's safe to assume that most negative reviews are coming from places of ignorance and one-sided judgmental fear.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Mar 28, 2019 Jackie Snow rated it it was amazing

This book is tight as fuck. It starts with a history of anti-fascist movements, which includes Jewish WW2 veterans physically breaking up meetings of fascists who said they didn't burn up enough Jews in the camps, all the way to current deplatforming efforts. There are so many efforts that shut down fascists its incredible. The author also breaks down arguments made against violent efforts not working (they have and do) and the ways it's disingenuous to say antifascist are anti-free speech. This ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review