I've been thinking a bit about this of late, and about the reaction some people, especially those more on the right, seem to have to agressive antifa actions.
I'm excluding self-defence and reactions to armed provocation, as happens quite a lot (so yes, my title is more provocative than intended), from this category of actions. My reaction is to attacks directly on the few protests that remain non-violent.
Considering the german parallels (they're easy, after all this is one of the few templates we do have of a fascist takeover, along with latin Europe, Greece and some arab countries), I was reading a Tulchovsky piece and I'm getting nagging thoughts. The Freikorps that became the SA were involved in street fights for much of the 1928-1932 period, except in many cases these fights were initiated by KPD and SPD members along with german anarchists, and during this period the NSDAP share of the vote kept rising constantly. And the left largely lost both in the streets and the polls. Some seem to have considered this a factor in the rise of nazism, as it gave the petty bourgeoisie and some workers the impression that a) society was falling apart, that b) what was making it fall apart was left-wing assaults on it (made worse, probably, by the stab-in-the-back mythology cultivated by the right) and that c) the nazis were offering the vision that would save society from said violence/falling apart. By being white knights, basically.
In short, I get the slight feeling that it might be counterproductive and playing right in the hands of all these wannabe SA types. Thoughts? Counter Opinions? Am I completely insane and letting anxiety do the speaking? Just wondering...