Hello, I am new here and I'd like to see your point of view on violence and antifascism, especially in the wake of recent events. (By the way, this isn't really related, but I just read the introductory guide and it explained the basic concepts better than anything I read before, especially the relationship between the state and capital, really good job on that)
First, the Richard Spencer incident. I am not at all morally opposed to the punch itself, and it felt very cathartic to see the nazi driven off. But how practical is it? I know that he himself said that they "can't have a public movement" if they're in constant fear of such incidents, but should we take the nazi's word for it? He knows what he says is publicly available, so it seems foolish to genuinely, openly say how best to oppose them. Maybe I'm giving him too much credit by assuming some kind of reverse psychology on his part, but it seems to me open violence like that scares people and makes them more sympathetic to him.
Secondly, on a larger scale, waging war on fascist, totalitarian regimes. Recently I saw some left wing people denounce Americans who during WW II opposed invading Nazi Germany, calling them nazi sympathisers. On the other hand, the Left was pretty unanimously opposed to the Iraq war. Saddam Hussein's regime was responsible for deaths oh hundreds of thousands, they used poisonous gas on Kurds. Now I know this isn't the reason USA invaded Iraq, but can't the same be said of Nazi Germany? They attacked only after years of war, Stalin's urging and after Hitler declared war on USA in the first place. Is the difference in approach between the two based on scale and power relation?