After the policeman with the "appropriate" last name Chauvin killed George Floyd, protests followed throughout the United States of America. Those protests contained and still contain a pronounced violent tone. The violence of the protesters is not aimed at people as such, but at police stations and private property: the institutions most responsible for the lives and deaths of people like George Floyd. As could be expected, it was the violence that became the central point of discussion about the protests. Thus, various commentators inclined to the ideas and values behind the protests strongly criticize the violent elements and call for a strict suppression of violence.
Their logic rests on the assumption that violence delegitimizes protests and dulls their political edge. Although discussion of the utility and legitimacy of certain violent methods in politics is always necessary and welcome, this logic ignores a couple of key functions of violence in this context. Violence directed at institutions that perpetrate violence in "peacetime" times is not an unnecessary excess that hinders political and democratic debate. Violence is precisely the element that brings a political dimension to the whole story. Without that violence, the violent everyday life lived by the subjugated remains invisible, something that is not worthy of political status because that's just the way it is. And another thing: that's how political history was created. It was violence that responded to violence that created political freedoms.
One of such violent episodes was represented by the anti-fascist movement. Therefore, it is not surprising that Donald Trump's decision announced on Twitter to declare ANTIFA a terrorist organization. At the same time, it does not matter at all that such an organization does not exist, but only that there are more or less loosely connected people of anti-fascist beliefs. It doesn't even matter that basic logic dictates that if you declare a political belief that opposes fascism illegal, you have an extremely dubious view of fascism. But behind Trump's move is a whole arsenal of political tricks of the contemporary right that cannot be reduced to his personality or to the ultimate derivative of the logical exercise FA - ANTIFA - ANTIANTIFA.
Let's single out two tricks that are widely applied outside the American context, as well as in ours. The first starts from the assumption that today the anti-fascist movement is not needed because there is no fascism and no fascists. That is, if there are any, they are an extremely marginal phenomenon. And if there is an anti-fascist movement and anti-fascist beliefs in a time when there is no fascism, then it is obviously some manipulators and extremists. A certain plausibility of this assumption stems from the relatively easy discrediting that is largely used by the liberal intelligentsia to immediately declare any conservative leanings as fascism. This discrediting is often actually disguised class contempt because it is directed at the supposedly misguided masses. However, the fact that everything is declared fascism and that there are no relevant political forces that explicitly identify with historical fascism does not mean that there are no fascist policies. They are only smuggled under some supposed sanctuaries such as nation, culture, homeland, family, way of life. It's a trick called: fascism is in the eye of the beholder.
The second trick is based on the "extremism" of anti-fascism as a political belief. It is normal that we are all "anti-fascists" morally and by values, but political anti-fascism is an extremism that can never have wider popular support. This is how Trump himself acts when he declares ANTIFU to be the organizer of the riots, as well as numerous liberals who blame foreign elements for the escalation of violence. It is as if the members of the African-American community do not see the racist and fascist policies to which they are exposed on a daily basis and as if it would never occur to them to respond to violence with violence. This ploy seeks to create a general perception that people are normally moderate and conservative by nature and are not inclined to defend their rights. Especially not a violent one. This myth of popular inertia serves to equate extremists on both sides of the political spectrum. Both fascists and anti-fascists are just parasites on the common people. With the fact that anti-fascists are even more dangerous because, of course, there are no fascists at all.
Although we all see one every day in the White House.
Bonus video:
