So, to the question of, “Why do you use violence,” Antifa answers, “Violence is necessary against Nazis because you can’t talk to evil.” If this seems to mirror what imperialist America has been saying about its “enemies” for decades, that’s no coincidence. The war industry has become America’s bread and butter, and its world view has percolated down through every level of society.


Editor’s note: Another in the series of posts by Rise Up Times about violent vs. nonviolent tactics and organizing.

What’s in a name? If I were reading this as an uninformed person I would not have a clue what the “ultra-left” is. I think we need a better term to describe protesters who prefer more violent confrontation and tactics that really describes who they are (This term is in somewhat common usage; Contursi did not coin it. The same may be said of “ultra-right.) To call violent protesters antifa is controversial because it does not include all people who identify themselves as antifa as some endorse and work for nonviolent protest on the streets. The same goes for “alt-right,” which Contursi does not use, as a nice code word for neo-fascists, but doesn’t really describe anything. “Radical left” will not work because many nonviolent protesters may be termed radical. “Militant left” might work.

In another vein, I again refer also to my article about violent vs. nonviolent protest around the G20, which still applies. Here is my introduction to that article with the Charlottesville addition:

Editor’s Note, September 2, 2017: Some of this article may apply to Charlottesville and to the future of dissent and protests, especially in the U.S. Do we play into the hands of those who are moving us toward a totalitarian state by succumbing to the temptation to use violence in the streets like the neo-Nazi alt-right? Do we succumb to cutting off their free speech and First Amendment rights without endangering our own in the future? Chomsky and Hedges, who have firmly stated their support of nonviolence and First Amendment rights around free speech, see a larger picture of what is at stake than just one demonstration, or a few demonstrations. One place the struggle to save our democracy and stop the move to a totalitarian state is playing out is on the streets and that is what Charlottesville has shown us. But it is also playing out in the courts, in the federal and state legislatures, in the opposition to racism (the wall, the ban) and in the action platforms of organizations like Black Lives Matter who recognize the larger struggle as well.

In regard to Contursi’s comment that there appear to be no similarities to America today and pre-WWII Germany and the takeover of the Hitler and the fascists I would like to point out one of the most instructive lessons of the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C., and that is the wall where it shows the systematic passing of law after law that gave power to Hitler and the fascist state. A version of this law-changing is being attempted, with some success, in the USA today. For example, what have come to be referred to as The Ban and The Wall, and now DACA all against immigrants, primarily people of color, as well as the gutting of protections under the Environmental Protection Agency and health care of course, as the Trump administration plans yet another assault on Obamacare.  A number of laws have also been passed taking away financial protections that protect the consumer and now give permission for the rich to get even richer. Mary seriously affect the environment. There are more, too many to list here, but they come in daily asking for action in my emails.

Another similarity to pre-WWII Germany is the economic decline and joblessness. The economy of Germany was not thriving. So they blamed the Jews, resulting in Crystal Nacht—and you know the rest.  The propaganda machine blaming the Jews for everything wrong in Germany was powerful. We have the mainstream corporate media, which more often than not, serves the corporate elite. We also have massive unemployment and massive under-employment is this country at this time, allowing the neo-fascists, many of whom are low-income white men, to blame the immigrants and other minorities for taking away their jobs, even if is the corporate elite who are driving the move of industry to other countries as well as the “robotization” of many jobs previously performed by human beings. It is true that we do not have as strong an authoritarian history as Germany, and we have the legacy of Howard Zinn and others to show that it is the American people who have brought democracy to this country, as evidenced in the book by Zinn, A People’s History of the United States.

Contursi suggests two ways to combat fascism, first, to stick to nonviolent tactics because violent tactics take away from the effectiveness of protest and second, to engage in long-range planning and organization.

The G20 is an excellent example of how violent tactics take away from the media covering the issues, as they chose to only cover the violent protesters and ignored the tens of thousands of nonviolent protesters and the issues that need elucidation (as explained in my article).

In regard to long-term organizing, Contursi uses the example of the BDS movement for Palestinian rights (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions). This example is excellent in two ways: first, it has been and still is effective, in spite of recent attacks against it, and second, it is a global movement. BDS uses creative nonviolent tactics as well as working through government systems in legislatures and other government and non-governmental entities worldwide, proposing divestment and applying financial pressure and telling the truth about Israel/Palestine.

The protest at the G20—a coming together of corporate interests worldwide—is also a global movement: the struggles we are involved in against militarism and  for democracy and to save the planet from rapacious predators of the human kind is as global as it is national, regional, and local within the U.S., as is the need to understand that nonviolent protesters in the U.S. have allies worldwide and that the controversy about tactics is not the sole property of the U.S. And that essentially militant or violent tactics have historically proved to hinder rather than help movements.

One effect this controversy about nonviolent vs. nonviolent tactics can have is to divide the left, obviously not the establishment left elite but the left that is in the streets. As Coleen Rowley and others have said, we cannot allow the powers that be (the deep state? the elite? the mainstream corporate media?) to split the left resistance because of course they want to disempower the resistance in any way possible. Unfortunately, in Berkeley, the violence took over. Long-term organizing is essential, and one of the tactics of long-term organizing is being in the streets, or in the case of BDS, on the flotillas to Israel. In America that might mean Greenpeace hanging the Resist banner at the White House or the kayak flotillas, most recently with World Beyond War at the Pentagon. So yes, there are many creative nonviolent tactics that are powerful, and the number of people who turned up in a nonviolent protest on the Boston streets after Charlottesville? That’s one, too.

We are part of a global struggle and to isolate militarism, climate and environmental chaos, and the struggle against totalitarian, white supremacy and racism, capitalism on steroids and corporatism is counterproductive. We need to become one struggle with different aspects, instead of being looked upon and looking on ourselves as separate struggles. An obvious parallel is U.S. militaristic foreign policy that has bombed so many countries and created so many refugees who are non-Christian and people of color, as that folds hand-in-hand with The Wall, The Ban and DACA. It also folds in with climate chaos as indigenous people all over the world are fighting against corporate plunder of their resources and the devastation of climate chaos. Authoritarianism and totalitarianism come into it because the “rulers” want to control all the resources, all the wealth and therefore have to control the masses, the hoi poloi, the ‘common’ people. That is where the threat to democracy looms in the U.S. and threatens democratic forms of government worldwide.

Sue Ann Martinson, Editor, Rise Up Times  September 18, 2017

The “Battle of Cable Street” is a key event in the “creation myth” of the anti-fascist movement. It goes like this:

On Sunday, October 4, 1936, about 5,000 members of the British Union of Fascists (BUF), led by Sir Oswald Mosley, planned to march in full Blackshirt regalia through several Jewish neighborhoods in London’s East End. Six thousand police were assigned to protect them from about 100,000 anti-fascist protesters. The anti-fascists fought the police and erected barricades to block the marchers. When the fascists saw there was no possibility of moving beyond the barricades, they abandoned the march and dispersed. [1]

Some accounts of the battle claim that the fascists and anti-fascists fought hand-to-hand, but Reg Weston, a journalist who was in his early twenties when he actually participated in the battle, makes it clear that the two sides never clashed. The police and barricades kept them apart. It’s a myth, Weston says, “that the ‘battle’ was between the protesters and the Blackshirts. It was not — it was a battle with the police.” [2]

Nevertheless, the crowd celebrated that day. The “Battle of Cable Street” went down in history as a victory for anti-fascist forces and to this day is part of the heroic mythology of the ultra-left: “For many members of contemporary anti-Fascist groups, the incident remains central to their mythology, a kind of North Star in the fight against Fascism and white supremacy across Europe and, increasingly, the United States.” [3]

But was it really a victory?

On the surface, the battle appears to justify the preferred tactic of the ultra-left: direct physical confrontation in the streets. However, like all myths, the battle and its outcome have been distorted and embellished over the years. When we look at what actually happened in the weeks, months and years following the battle, two things become clear.

First, as a tactic violence can, at best, bring short-term gains, but those have to be weighed against long-term consequences. In other words, we don’t want to win the battle but lose the war. This is what happened at Cable Street. Second, justifying violence by comparing the U.S. today with fascism in the 1930s is a red herring. In the 1930s, Nazis posed a real threat to democracy; in 2017 America, they do not. It’s time to ask, cui bono – who benefits?

After the battle the fascists grew stronger 

Unfortunately, the anti-fascists celebrating their victory in 1936 couldn’t have known that their actions would ultimately do nothing to stop either the Nazi juggernaut that descended upon Europe three years later, or the immediate popularity of the BUF. In fact, the BUF benefitted from the violence and became even stronger over the next four years, until 1940, when it was banned by the government.

What the anti-fascist forces did achieve at Cable Street was a singular victory in stopping a single march. But at what price? In the aftermath of that action, membership in the BUF grew. Rather than smashing fascism, the battle turned out to be a recruitment tool for the BUF. The organization gained an additional 2,000 members immediately, and its membership continued to climb steadily. Seven months before the battle, BUF membership was around 10,000; one month after the battle, it rose to 15,500. It continued to rise until, by 1939, the BUF had about 22,500 members. [4]

The anti-fascist actions didn’t dampen the peoples’ enthusiasm for Mosely’s message. In the weeks after the battle, pro-fascist crowds in the thousands turned out for BUF meetings, listened to Mosley’s fascist proselytizing, and marched through London without much opposition. [1] An intelligence report on the battle noted that afterwards, “A definite pro-Fascist feeling has manifested itself. The alleged Fascist defeat is in reality a Fascist advance.” [1]

Violence, it seems, provided free publicity for the fascists. The BUF “thrived off the publicity that violent opposition produced. The national media, under pressure from the government, largely avoided reporting on Fascist activity other than when disorder occurred. A leading Mosleyite lamented the ‘total silence’ in the press when BUF events passed without incident, complaining that only after disruption by opponents did newspapers show any interest.” [1]

And the fascists were quick to make the best of their notoriety. They cast themselves in the role of victim and hammered home the charge that the Left was interfering with their right to free speech and assembly.

Other confrontations with BUF fascists at Stockton (September 1933) and Newcastle (May 1934) had similar results. The anti-fascists succeeded in stopping the BUF temporarily, but as long as the fascists were perceived to be the victim of mob violence, their popularity and membership grew.

If these arguments from the 1930s sound familiar it’s because what we’re witnessing today in the ultra-right vs. ultra-left skirmishes is a replay of the anti-fascist strategy – and failures – from that era. But does that mean that the only choice we have is between doing nothing and taking violent action? That’s the ultra-left position, but it’s a false dichotomy that smacks of a lack of imagination or commitment to social change.

What stopped the British fascists?  

The single event that put a dent in the BUF’s power and propaganda was the end of its access to the press. The Daily Mail and Daily Mirror were its main propaganda tools. Their owner, Lord Rothermere, stopped supporting Mosley after the fascists were accused of initiating brutal violence during a meeting at Olympia in 1934. After that meeting, Rothermere’s Jewish advertisers in the UK threatened to pull their advertising unless he stopped editorially supporting Mosley. [5] Without the press, the BUF’s message was limited, and its membership dropped to 5,000 the following year. The final nail in the BUF’s coffin came in 1940, when the government banned them after the start of WW2.

So, the lessons to draw from Cable Street and the other anti-fascist actions in the 1930s are:

1) Violence is not an effective long-term tactic against Nazi hate groups. When Mosley’s fascists were perceived to be the victims of violence, their membership grew; but when they were perceived to be the perpetrators of violence, it dropped.

2) What does work, but is more difficult for peace groups to achieve, is applying economic pressure to the fascists’ financial base and swamping their propaganda with truth. This requires a long-term organizing strategy beyond the occasional demonstration or peace march (a good example of a long-term nonviolent strategy is the BDS movement).

No, today’s America does not resemble 1930s Germany 

While this notion is thrown around – mostly into the faces of people who don’t condone violent confrontation with white supremacists – as “common knowledge,” it’s never actually questioned. Peace workers are simply expected to quake at the very idea of 1930s Germany. But what did 1930s Germany look like, and is there really any comparison with today’s America?

Hitler pretty much took over the German state in seven months, between January and July 1933. In January 1933, President von Hindenburg appointed Hitler Reich Chancellor under pressure from the German ruling political and business classes. In February, after the Reichstag fire, Hitler began his move against the Left, which inGermany was strong in the labor movement. Using the SA (Sturmabteilung–Storm Detachment, the paramilitary wing of the National Socialist party) and his Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State, Hitler suspended civil liberties and began a full-scale terror campaign against the German Communist Party (KPD), including arrests, occupation of their offices, and shutting down of their press (again, note the critical role communications play). Many Party leaders went underground and many were executed. Without visible leadership and a printing press, the Communists were effectively neutered.

In early March, Hitler went after the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and confiscated its property, including its press. By late March, the regime passed the Enabling Bill, giving Hitler the power to rule by decree. With the Left parties out of the way, the trade unions no longer had effective leadership and Hitler was free to attack them next. In May he occupied the offices of the independent trade unions and confiscated their property. The regime then created the  German Labour Front to “represent” German workers. In June, the SPD was banned, and in July the regime passed the Law Against the Establishment of Parties—outlawing all political parties except the National Socialists. With all political and trade union opposition out of the way, and Germany a police state, it remained only for Hindenburg to die, which he did the following year in August 1934, whereupon Hitler merged the offices of the Chancellery and Presidency and became dictator. [6]

Even in this brief summation of the early years of 1930s Germany one would be hard pressed to see any comparison with today’s America, Trump notwithstanding, or any grounds for the irrational fear among liberals that the country is about to be overrun by Nazis.

Instead, what should be clear is the continuity of the neocon and neoliberal agenda from the 1990s — under both political parties — that has brought us never-ending regime change wars, deep cuts in domestic programs, and internecine identity politics conflicts within the working and middle classes.

Divided, we cannot effectively confront the ruling classes, and they know it. There is one issue capable of splitting and cracking the organized peace and justice movement, and that’s the issue of tactics — violence vs. nonviolence. Historically it has split the Left into smithereens over and over again. In fact, if the ultra-left hadn’t appeared at this point in history, the ruling class would have had to create it, sponsor it, glorify it in the media, and allow it the freedom to divide the left and destabilize protests that, in the past, have gone on without incident. Again, cui bono?

Violence is a dead-end…time to get creatively nonviolent

Why violence?

[Antifa] believe that elites are controlling the government and the media. So they need to make a statement head-on against the people who they regard as racist. There’s this ‘It’s going down’ mentality and this ‘Hit them with your boots’ mentality that goes back many decades to confrontations that took place, not only here in the American South, but also in places like Europe.

— Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino. [7]

The idea in Antifa is that we go where they (right-wingers) go. That hate speech is not free speech. That if you are endangering people with what you say and the actions that are behind them, then you do not have the right to do that. And so we go to cause conflict, to shut them down where they are, because     we don’t believe that Nazis or fascists of any stripe should have a mouthpiece.

— Scott Crow, a former 30-year member of an Antifa group. [7]

When you look at this grave and dangerous threat — and the violence it has already caused — is it more dangerous to do nothing and tolerate it, or should we confront it? Their existence itself is violent and dangerous, so I don’t think using force or violence to oppose them is unethical.

— Antifa activist [8]

What strikes me in the rhetoric of the ultra-left is a sense of urgency and danger, which then feeds the perceived need for the use of force against an overwhelming enemy. This is a crusade, and the enemy is evil itself. So, to the question of, “Why do you use violence,” Antifa answers, “Violence is necessary against Nazis because you can’t talk to evil.” If this seems to mirror what imperialist America has been saying about its “enemies” for decades, that’s no coincidence. The war industry has become America’s bread and butter, and its world view has percolated down through every level of society.

But “Why” is the wrong question. From a purely tactical stance, the question should be, “Does it work?” And the answer that comes down to us from history and experience is, “Not in the long-term.”

The lesson from Cable Street is clear—the anti-fascists succeeded in shutting down one march. But in the aftermath of that action, fascist membership grew and, within a few weeks, the BUF was marching again—with little or no opposition.

Most organizations working for social change do so with an explicit commitment to nonviolence, as stated in their mission statements. There are good reasons, and a lot of historical precedents, for this. These groups know that peace work is long-term work that requires decades, often generations of commitment. No organization can hope to sustain its work and maintain its membership over the long term through violence. Organizing the masses around hatred of an “Other” is not a long-term winning strategy, especially when that Other isn’t even the real enemy. There is some irony in the fact that the ultra-right hates the Deep State as much as the ultra-left does.

The Nazi organizations in the U.S. are not the Italian Blackshirts or the German Brownshirts. Contemporary U.S. Nazis resemble their Italian and German idols only in their symbols and rhetoric. Beyond that, they are isolated groups that split, fracture, often kill one another, and have no political party backing. The fact that the media and its political handlers have chosen this moment in history to hype the “Nazi threat” should raise a few eyebrows, if not questions.

Is nonviolence “pacifism”?

Ultra-leftists use the “P” word to imply that those advocating nonviolence are cowards, do-nothings and enablers of fascism. These charges can be expected from individuals who have little foresight, little knowledge of history and little experience in actual organizing – but who have a lot of fear and confusion about current events.

So, a word about what nonviolence is and is not. Nonviolence is not pacifism. It is not toleration. It is not cowardice. Nonviolent direct action is struggle. It is courage. It is thoughtful and creative strategizing. It is for the future of humankind.

To the false and loaded question of, “Is it more dangerous to do nothing and tolerate it?” we can let Howard Zinn, a life-long nonviolent fighter for peace and justice, have the final word:

Thus, none of the traditionally approved mechanisms for social change (not war, nor revolution, nor reform) is adequate for the kind of problems we face today in the United States and in the world. We need apparently some technique which is more energetic than parliamentary reform and yet not subject to the dangers which war and revolution pose in the atomic age.

This technique, I suggest, is that which has been used over the centuries by aggrieved groups in fitful, semi-conscious control of their own actions. With the Negro revolt in America, the technique has begun to take on the quality of a deliberate use of power to effect the most change with the least harm. I speak of non-violent direct action. This encompasses a great variety of methods, limited only by our imaginations: sit-ins, freedom rides and freedom walks, prayer pilgrimages, wade-ins, pray-ins, freedom   ballots, freedom schools, and who knows what is on the horizon? Whatever the specific form, this technique has certain qualities: it disturbs the status quo, it intrudes on the complacency of the majority, it expresses the anger and the hurt of the aggrieved, it publicizes an injustice, it demonstrates the inadequacy of whatever reforms have been instituted up to that point, it creates tension and trouble and thus forces the holders of power to move faster than they otherwise would have to redress grievances. [9]

Media for the people!  Learn more about Rise Up Times and how to sustain People Supported News.

No Peace! No Justice!  Please share this post.

The contents of Rise Up Times do not necessarily reflect the views of the editor.


[1] Daniel Tilles, “The Myth of Cable Street.” History Today, Volume 61 Issue 10 October 2011

[2] Reg Weston, “Fascists and police routed: the battle of Cable Street

[3] Daniel Penny, “An Intimate History of Antifa.” The New Yorker. August 22, 2017

[4] G. C. Webber, “Patterns of Membership and Support for the British Union of Fascists,” Journal of Contemporary History. Vol. 19, No. 4, Reassessments of Fascism (Oct., 1984), pp. 575-606

[5] Steven Banks, “Revealed: The Extent of the Daily Mail’s Support for the British Union of Fascists.”

[6] Stephen Salter, “The Object Lesson: The Division of the German Left and the Triumph of National Socialism.” In The Popular Front in Europe, ed. by Helen Graham and Paul Preston. NY: St. Martin’s Press. 1987. For a definitive account of 1930s Germany see Richard J. Evans, The Coming of the Third Reich. Penguin Books. 2005.

[7] Jessica Suerth, “What is Antifa?

[8] Thomas Fuller, Alan Feuer, Serge F. Kovaleski, “Antifa’ Grows as Left-Wing Faction Set to, Literally, Fight the Far Right.” The New York Times. August 17, 2017.

[9] Howard Zinn, “Non-Violent Direct Action

Janet Contursi is a freelance writer and peace activist in Minneapolis. She can be reached at

By Published On: September 18th, 20172 Comments


  1. ashiftinconsciousness October 21, 2017 at 10:18 PM

    Excellent post.

  2. […] via No, Antifa, This is Not the 1930s and We Don’t Need to Punch a Nazi | Rise Up Times […]

Comments are closed.

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

Subscribe via email
Enter your email address to follow Rise Up Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 3,899 other followers


VIDEO: Militarism, Climate Chaos, and the Environment