Isn't attacking Nazis and white-supremacists coercive and dominating, therefore antithetical to anarchist thought?

Question

During the NATO summit and protests, a small bloc of antifas attacked some known European white-supremacists while they were having lunch. As I asked in the question, this seems dominating and coercive; domination and coercion being two things that anarchists seem to be required to oppose to be considered anarchists. Attacking them if they were directly and physically harming others is one thing, even if they were holding a rally/event I could understand a physical retaliation. But when they're just eating lunch and going about their lives? I'm not so sure...

Comments

Considering that neo-nazis and white nationalist types attack the "other" (non-white people, gay and queer, immigrants, and others) while they are going on about their lives, I don't give a fuck what happens to the right-wing scumbags.
I would also hope that Stalinists and other leftist authoritarians would get attacked as well while they are eating their marxist peanut and butter jelly sandwiches !

Answer 1

no, because allowing fascism and other capitalist totalitarianism to exist, is antithetical to anarchist thought.

Comments

To target those of an opposing ideology would likely either strengthen the groups resolve or weaken it at least in the targeted location.

If we considered this an act of of terrorism would that change our perspective?  Terrorism would seem to create a certain anarchy-like condition and its main motive is undermine and overthrown authority.  

Terrorism seems to make a void of local order and authority for the purpose of enforcing it own value system through an authoritative vacuum within an regional area.  Terror can be used for other purposes but on such a smaller scale is ineffective.

Once control is achieved it is maintained without violence as long as
 the values are maintained by the population.   

But  the condition by this method is not really anarchy yet it is an effective to overcome authority and government while maintaining order.

Just some observations, no endorsement intended.

edited to make it a comment

Answer 2

dear anonymous:
your criticism seems to come from a definition of war or self defense that comes out of the movies. ie you only fight people when the fight has been announced and you're both on the battle ground in full armor. a) that is not how actual fighting works. b) that is DEFINITELY not how fascists work (in my experience they like to pick the time and have at least twice as many fighters as who they're attacking). c) we are not equal combatants who are fighting for our honor in the sight of god and the king. nor are we going to be claiming self-defense in some court of law that has blinders on and never takes context into account (except when it wants to).
the question of violence, when it is appropriate and when it is just re-creating the system that we're fighting, is maybe a fair one, but that is not the one you bring up (except very tangentially). and to that i would say (again, as i have said many times before) that context and scale are important, and get thrown out the window in these questions, as if we are supposed to be, or want to be, or CAN be, pure.