Democracy also has a 'tyranny of the majority' vulnerability in which it can enforce policies onto minorities that could be just as harsh compared to policies imposed by autocracies. For example - Japanese American internment in WWII.
If there is a large group of people who use a term like "anti-fascist" as a tag line it no longer is a literal representation of the words. Just like how you wouldn't say that a guy rolling coal in a lifted pickup with a confederate flag and an AR mounted in the window who calls himself a "freedom fighter" is literally fighting for freedom.
Otherwise you will just be talking past people who are interpreting it to mean something else. Which of course you are free to do if you don't think what you are trying to say has enough value to be worth avoiding the miscommunication.
I'd argue that most, if not all clandestine cells that call themselves themselves "Antifa" are as anti-Fascist as the "National Socialist German Workers' Party" were socialist.
And the fascists aren’t thuggish? I think you have your priorities backwards, bub. Rotting for fascism is rooting for evil, full stop, end of discussion.
Labelling (all?) American (Allied?) personnel as "antifa" or even "anti-fascist" is an interesting move. The article doesn't seem to demonstrate what you suggest it does nor does it seem particularly relevant in general.
What are you trying to say?
That, if we accept that logic, we must either say the Allies who fought in WWII didn't value democracy, or we must accept a definition of anti-fascist that is so broad, it easily includes people even many on the right would call Nazis.