the_dunk_tank

If it's anything, there's a case to be made that Hitler was often a hindrance to the Nazi party efforts and if he got taken out then he might have been replaced by someone more competent and effective. Idk enough to know the truth of that claim but I can see how it could be valid.

Then there's all the usual criticisms that come with adventurism (shout out to the RadLib I'm in a discussion with elsewhere who said "Terrorism is based! That's what we [anarchists] are all about!" - exactly the kind of mentality that had Ukrainian anarchists joining the front at the start of the civil war to oppose fascism and then turning around and joining the fascists - because they were better armed and better organised )

So what does that leave us with? It's always the same answer - agitate, educate, organise.

Fascists, who aren't of the street gang variety, are typically well organised and well supported. The only viable way of mounting a meaningful resistance to them is by having a strong party, a strong movement, and strong ties to the broader community.

It's exceedingly unlikely that there will be a pivot point of history where you can personally stop fascism with a single act. Even more unlikely that you'll be there at the right time, in the right place, with the right resources. Fascism is a systemic rot, not just the figurehead of a movement.

And it's always worth considering that even if you happen to find yourself at a pivot point in history with the right resources, the chips aren't necessarily going to fall in your favour - arguably the assassination attempt on Bolsonaro brought him mainstream attention and elevated his political career. Reagan polled markedly better after his assassination attempt. I'm not going to armchair quarterback history or anything but often there are unforeseen circumstances and unexpected consequences that come with drastic actions.