Skip to content
Suggest a term
FalsePoliticsLast updated: June 2, 2026

Antifascism Is The New Fascism

The claim that antifascism is itself a form of fascism is a rhetorical reversal with no basis in political science or history. Fascism and antifascism are ideologically opposed by definition. The claim exploits surface-level similarities in confrontational tactics to erase a fundamental difference in goals, structure and ideology.

What we know

The claim that 'antifascism is the new fascism' is a common rhetorical device in right-wing political commentary. It is not a serious analytical argument in political science or history. Scholars who study fascism as an ideology - including Robert Paxton, Umberto Eco, and Roger Griffin - define it by specific characteristics: ultranationalism, authoritarian rule, the suppression of political opposition, racial or ethnic hierarchy, and the violent destruction of democratic institutions. Antifascism, by definition and by historical practice, opposes all of these characteristics.

Antifascism as a political movement began in Europe in the early 1920s as a direct response to the rise of Mussolini's Italian Fascists. It grew rapidly after fascism became the state ideology of Italy in 1922 and Germany in 1933. During World War II, antifascism was not a fringe radical position - it was the official stance of the Allied powers, including the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union. Resistance movements in every occupied European country were antifascist in character. The claim that this tradition represents a form of fascism would mean that Churchill, Roosevelt, and the Allied soldiers who fought Nazi Germany were 'fascists,' a conclusion no serious historian defends.

The modern form of the claim usually targets the militant wing of contemporary antifascism, known as Antifa. Critics correctly point to incidents of property destruction, street confrontations and the use of masks and black uniforms. These are legitimate criticisms of specific tactics. However, criticising the methods of antifascists is not the same as demonstrating that antifascism is fascism. Fascism is not defined by confrontational tactics. Many non-fascist movements across history have used militant tactics, including suffragettes, civil rights activists and trade unions.

Routgers University historian Mark Bray, the leading academic authority on the antifa movement, describes antifa as 'a pan-radical left movement of communists, socialists, anarchists and other leftists who oppose fascism.' He notes that most antifa activity consists of monitoring and doxing far-right groups, not street violence, and that antifa is not an organisation but a decentralised set of beliefs and tactics. The claim that antifa secretly organised the January 6 Capitol attack as a 'false flag' - a common extension of the 'antifascism is fascism' narrative - was investigated and found to be unsupported by law enforcement and multiple independent journalistic investigations.

The rhetorical strategy behind the claim is known in political theory as 'bothsidesism' or false equivalence: by labelling antifascists as fascists, it becomes possible to argue that there is no meaningful difference between defending and attacking democratic norms. This framing benefits those who want to discredit opposition to far-right movements without engaging with the ideological content of fascism itself.

It is worth noting that in his second term, President Trump signed an executive order designating Antifa as a domestic terrorist organisation, though legal scholars have pointed out that antifa is not an organisation and there is no federal statute under which collective political violence can be prosecuted as domestic terrorism. The Britannica entry on the subject notes that 'the order was questionable because antifa is not an organisation and because there is no federal law under which violence committed by any group could be prosecuted as domestic terrorism.'

In short, fascism and antifascism are not equivalent. One is defined by the goal of establishing authoritarian ultranationalist rule and suppressing opposition. The other is defined by opposition to that goal. Tactical similarities in confrontational behaviour do not erase this fundamental ideological difference.

Common claims

  • Antifascism is itself a form of fascism.False
  • Antifa is a single organised terrorist organisation.False - antifa is a decentralised movement, not an organisation
  • Antifa secretly organised the January 6 Capitol attack.False - investigated and unsupported by evidence
  • Using confrontational or violent tactics makes a movement fascist.False - fascism is defined by ideology and goals, not by tactics alone
  • Antifascism has historical roots going back to the 1920s.Supported
  • The Allied powers in World War II were antifascist.Supported

Evidence hierarchy

01Scholarly definitions of fascism - Paxton, Eco, GriffinLeading comparative fascism scholars define fascism by ultranationalism, authoritarianism, racial hierarchy and suppression of opposition - characteristics that antifascism by definition opposes.02Anti-fascism - BritannicaBritannica documents antifascism's origins in the 1920s, its role in World War II Allied resistance, and the scholarly consensus that antifa is a movement, not a terrorist organisation.03Rutgers University - Mark Bray on persistent myths about antifaHistorian Mark Bray documents that most antifa activity involves monitoring and doxing far-right groups, not violence, and that antifa is not an organisation.04Centre on Hate, Bias and Extremism - Persistent Myths About AntifaAcademic analysis dispelling the claim that antifascists have no clear definition of fascism and that violence is their primary strategy.05Trump executive order designating Antifa as domestic terrorist organisationThe 2025 executive order is noted as legally questionable by scholars because antifa is not an organisation and no federal domestic terrorism statute exists that covers it.

All sources