By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The US government’s recent decision to designate several European anti-fascist and related groups as terrorist organizations, including Germany’s Antifa Ost, has been met with both support and concern. The far-right Alternative für Deutschland party welcomed the move, urging similar action from European governments. However, historians and anti-fascist scholars warn that such a designation sets a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to a broader crackdown on left-wing activism, especially as far-right groups gain political traction. The US State Department’s decision could result in asset freezing and travel bans for the targeted groups, prompting discussions on the broad definition of “antifa” and the potential for misapplication of the term.
Read the original article here
AfD hails US ban on European leftwing groups as historians fear anti-fascist crackdown, and it’s certainly a headline that raises eyebrows and sparks immediate reactions. It’s not surprising to see the Alternative for Germany (AfD), a political party often associated with far-right ideologies, express support for the US ban on certain European leftwing groups. This alignment is, to put it mildly, concerning. It suggests a shared political ground, or at least a shared disdain for the groups being targeted.
The US State Department’s move, targeting groups like Germany’s Antifa Ost, Italy’s International Revolutionary Front, and two organizations accused of bombings in Greece, has set off alarm bells for historians and those who closely follow the rise of far-right movements. The fear is that this action could pave the way for a wider crackdown on left-wing activism. Considering that these groups are being targeted for criminal activities, the fear seems disproportionate, especially considering the timing and the potential for abuse.
A crucial point to consider is that the AfD’s approval of this ban places them on the “wrong side of history”. When a far-right party like the AfD celebrates actions that seem to suppress opposing political views, it suggests a dangerous trend. It shows their comfort level with suppressing those that challenge their ideology, which is, at its core, a suppression of the democratic process.
The “slippery slope” argument is another point of concern. The US, with its own history of political polarization, may set a precedent here. What starts as a ban on groups accused of violence could, with the wrong context and application, expand to include broader forms of left-wing activism, dissent, or criticism.
Critics have rightly pointed out that these banned groups have not necessarily been convicted, which raises questions about the basis and transparency of the US State Department’s decision. Additionally, some argue that targeting groups, like the International Revolutionary Front, for actions that happened years ago, suggests the ban is more about political posturing than genuine concern. It feels like flogging a dead horse.
The discussion also inevitably brings up the parallels with historical events. The echoes of “First they came for…” are hard to ignore. When the political establishment begins to erode the space for dissent, it’s a red flag. If it begins with those considered “extremists,” it makes it easier to target broader groups and, ultimately, individuals.
The context here is vital. The AfD is gaining traction in Germany. Across Europe, far-right groups are making electoral gains. This ban fits into a larger pattern of attacks on any groups who stand up to far right and fascist beliefs. In this environment, any crackdown on anti-fascist groups, no matter how small or controversial, is potentially dangerous and helps right-wing extremism.
It’s also worth noting that the Trump administration and its supporters have been accused of being fascist. It’s difficult to see how a party like the AfD, which has ties to nationalist ideologies and, according to its critics, a reluctance to unequivocally reject the country’s Nazi past, can celebrate such a move.
The potential for abuse is immense. The definition of “terrorism” and “extremism” are often subjective. It is so broad that it can be applied to nearly any political cause. This is a tactic that can be used to silence opposition, whether it be those who organize protests, publish articles, or simply voice opinions that are deemed unacceptable by those in power.
In conclusion, the AfD’s support of the US ban on European leftwing groups, coupled with historical concerns, should be seen as a warning sign. It reflects a dangerous trend toward the suppression of political dissent. The alignment between the AfD and the US government, which is facing its own questions of political alignment, serves to raise more questions than it answers. The US is a fringe case, this is not how democracies function.