art and antifascism

Towards the end of the 1930's, Brecht shocked the guests at a New York party by claiming, about the accused in the Moscow show trials: "The more innocent they are, the more they deserve to be shot." This statement is to be taken quite seriously, not just as perverse cockiness: its underlying premise is that in a concrete historical struggle, the attitude of "innocence" ("I don't want to dirty my hands by getting involved in the struggle, I just want to lead a modest and honest life") embodies the ultimate guilt. In our world, doing nothing is not empty, it already has a meaning - it means saying "yes" to existing relations of domination.

-Slavoj Žižek, Revolution at the Gates: Zizek on Lenin, the 1917 Writings (Verso, 2002)

Guilbot's comment in the introduction about providing a materialist history of modern art by examining the role of the art markets themselves worried me. What about the very real material violence on which the market rests? or the active (and passive violence) which makes the market itself possible and safe enough that it can be spoken of and critiqued publicly? Guilbot's first chapter on the communist debates over art and culture alleviated my concern. By addressing the overt political implications of cultural production, this chapter opened up many questions: particularly the consequences of modernity as the differentiation of life into separate spheres, but also the radical insistence that one cannot occupy a "pure" sphere as the idea of purity will always obscure its dirty and compromised conditions of possibility. Instead of theory, I'll relate an experience.

In 2005 my band was set to play in Bratislava, Slovakia. We were informed a week before hand that our promoter there had been jumped outside his apt and stabbed repeatedly. He and other prominent figures in the Bratislava hardcore/punk scene (people who booked shows, ran labels, put out zines) were being targeted by local fascists. Grassroots fascism has been on the rise in Eastern and Southern Europe with members of extremist groups joining police and local governments. Many involved in the punk scene are active in anti-fascist organizing which keeps track of groups and individuals, making their affiliations known whenever one of them tries to run for office. As a result, in Bratislava shows had been getting raided by gangs of skinheads/hooligans, there were bomb threats, and now orchestrated attempts on peoples' lives.

When the promoter was out of the hospital we offered to cancel the show. As an openly anarchist band we did not want to be responsible for agitating an already delicate situation. He told us they hadn't had shows for 6 months because of the threat of violence and that we needed to play, if for no other reason than to demonstrate (possibly only to themselves) that they could not be intimidated. The day before our show the singer of a local band was stabbed; he had both his lungs punctured and one collapsed. The night we played nobody knew if he was going to live (he did). Over 200 people came out to the show. The bands played knowing full well what might happen. There were scouts in the surrounding neighborhoods on the lookout for gangs and two ex-yugoslav military guys at the door (strapped). Thankfully, nothing happened.

In that situation I remember thinking that our music had ceased to be something which we ourselves made and it became something that was possible only as part of a collective refusal. It left no room to be neutral and even affirmed the use of violence to ensure its stability (guards). I read the debates over the Popular Front in this context. Trotsky's comment that "art cannot save itself" especially resonated. That night in Bratislava an anti-fascist community required art in order to save itself.