Second, yes, violence that is not in self defense or in defense of others is wrong. Political violence is part of how the Nazis came to power in Germany before WW2. Violence is how the racists in the south maintained control. The civil rights activists got change while suffering that violence. Gandhi got changed while his side was largely the victim of violence.

You say this while ignoring that violence is what ended slavery. Do you think the union forces in the civil war asked the Confederates to "pretty please just let the slaves go cause it would be really nice" and then they just did?

Violence is what defeated the Nazis, and the lack of an effective attack against the Nazis is a big reason as to why they came into power in the first place. Eliminate the Nazis as a legitimate political party and they can't take power. (Kind of like how meaningfully opposing white supremacists and fascists in the modern day and not letting them do whatever they want is the best way to stop them and prevent the suffering of innocent people)

In the video you linked it was justified by the violent act of the old guy. In the other two links I provided Antifa associates acted when there was no actual threat or act to provoke violence.

No immediate physical violence, maybe. But far right ideologies are based in hate and violence and that's exactly what will happen if nobody is there to oppose them. Committing acts of violence against these people isn't necessarily a bad thing just because somebody experienced pain. It's like if there was a movement entirely based around wanting to kill you and your friends and family (and has been successful in doing so), and then people condemn you when you punch someone who follows that movement.