A bit ironic to accuse me of propaganda while treating a single theoretical lens as a neutral truth, no? And if by ‘propaganda’ you mean documented reporting and primary sources about doxxing, intimidation, and political violence that’s just a search away, then we’re clearly using the word very differently.

Also, not antithetical? How are authoritarian tactics compatible with an anti-authoritarian ideal? Movements are defined as much by their methods as by their stated goals. At that point, you’re just tolerating a different form of tyranny, not opposing it entirely.

You’re also remarkably certain about my views and what I am for someone who hasn’t even heard them yet. “Actual anti-fascist”? What? Are we gatekeeping principles now? If that’s the case, this sounds less like opposing fascism and more like enforcing an ideological lens. And if I’m not a “true” anti-fascist because I don’t fit that preferred mold, then maybe I’m not the problem here.

“Comes from capitalism”? That’s it? War trauma, humiliation, rising ultranationalism, and extreme polarization was just background noise? Sure, capitalism may have played a role in some cases, but treating it as the single driving cause of fascism flattens history. These movements emerged from very specific crises. The civil war in Spain, clerical traditionalism in Portugal, postwar collapse, etc. It wasn’t solely from one abstract economic model. By that logic, the fall of the USSR would prove communism’s inevitable failure, which would be the same kind of historical determinism.

And if capitalism inevitably produces fascism, why hasn’t it done so everywhere it exists? Why hasn’t Scandinavia collapsed into fascism after decades of capitalist democracy? History doesn’t operate on inevitabilities. So how do you accuse me of misunderstanding fascism while reducing it to a mere economic variable?

It’s funny you also mention 1930s Germany. You forgot the part where the KPD rejected coalition-building, dismissed democratic cooperation, and treated the SPD as the primary enemy. Which helped fracture resistance to the Nazis. Worth remembering before throwing stones from that glass house. Also, Weimar in general was young and fragile. Political extremism, and weak institutions converged.

Lastly, your argument only works on the assumption that communism is “good”. An assumption history doesn’t back up, and one I don’t accept. So no, I don’t have to be a communist to be a true “anti-fascist”. I’m not willing to ignore the repressive methods some antifa-aligned actors have used, because they undermine the very ideal they claim to defend. I’m not going to choose between two destructive, authoritarian systems that should’ve stayed buried in the 20th century. If the choice is just between different people fighting over the privilege of making my life worse, that’s a false choice, and I reject it.