The problem with pseudo-radicalism in discourse.

How overstated rhetoric weakens genuine anti-fascist efforts

OpinionsCordelia Appleyard — Published March 18, 2025 3 minutes

In contrast, the language of right wing opposition feels weak. With cautious messaging, much of what passes for anti-fascism today relies on symbolic gestures and vague language rather than substantive change. 

Portraying acts of social good as political opposition has misdirected impact and mislabels response to far-right rhetoric. Linguistic inflation, whereby mutual aid is framed as radical resistance, has turned urgent struggles into branding campaigns. 

Slogans are often used in anti-fascist campaigns, and while memorable, they can be reductive and overly simplistic. 

Take campaigns like "Love Music Hate Racism." While well-intentioned, slogans like these flatten the complexity of structural racism into a vague cultural stance. 

The Food Against Fascism collective in Montreal might make for a compelling headline, but acts as passive activism. They frame social initiatives like food distribution or communal support as acts of resistance against oppressive systems as they hand out anti-racist zines and meals.

These music, food or housing initiatives address immediate needs but don’t directly challenge the structures that enable fascist movements to grow. As such, these efforts remain charitable rather than confrontational. 

There's no intention to shame activists, only to critically examine how political activism is navigated in a complex and emotionally charged landscape. 

An unfocused and cautionary approach to policy from the left is what makes conservatives' “strongman” act so comparatively effective and popular in the polls. Strongman politics is this chest-pumping, fight-picking, deflective scapegoating act we see in practice.

Opposition movements can’t effectively "out-cowboy" radical conservatives by just mirroring their hyperbolic language; the opposition must offer a clear alternative in policy.

 When slogans replace strategy, they validate that power lies in the rhetoric, not the policy.  

Historically, successful anti-fascist organizing has relied more on precise, strategic language to counteract and disrupt far-right movements. Antifa, in its most direct form, is not about broad moral opposition but about exposing, countering, and preventing fascist movements from gaining legitimacy and power. 

Using language of radical rhetoric and dramatic gestures without substantive action isn’t just an optics issue, it actively weakens the efficacy of anti-fascist efforts. 

In successful relief acts, labour unions have run soup kitchens during strikes. The Black Panther Party ran free breakfast programs as part of a broader fight against systemic racism. 

Food for hungry people without a framework opposing radical politics works to the same goal, it's an act of solidarity. Anti-fascism, on the other hand, is a direct response to fascist threats. 

Free food and community housing are mutual aid and social justice, which are also very important, but they’re not directly anti-fascist behaviours. Challenging systemic inequities under an anti-fascist trope is not direct political confrontation, it's community service and pseudo-radical activism. 

Activism needs to directly confront systems of oppression: It must hold power structures accountable through transparency in government and mobilizing policy change. 

When anti-fascism is framed as an abstract moral stance rather than an active disruption of far-right organizing, it loses its teeth, becoming a diluted language of resistance.

Language should reflect action, not serve as a substitute for it. Anti-fascism is not a branding exercise and framing it as such reduces it to empty rhetoric that over inflates the politics of basic human decency.

This article originally appeared in Volume 45, Issue 11, published March 18, 2025.