It's difficult to talk meaningfully about violence-averted, which is one of the reasons why Nobel Peace Prizes are almost always given to mass-murderers who agree to kill less, rather than people who avoid becoming mass-murderers in the first place.

I lived in an anarchist commune for a few years in my 20s, and some of us spent a lot of time talking about 'diversity of tactics'. Derrick Jensen was our shibboleth, and he's the kinda person who says things like:

People say 'what do you mean' when you talk about 'bringing down civilization.' What I really mean is depriving the rich of the ability to steal from the poor and depriving the powerful of the ability to destroy the planet. That's what I really mean.

We considered our commitment to anarchy more important than left or right wing priorities. We would work with anarchist national socialists on shared projects in a sort of 'we'll deal with you last' kind of way, under the logic that the most deadly thing humanity ever invented was the nation state. Non-anarchists thought of us as left wing.

We never pursued political violence because of arguments like Audre Lorde's 'The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House', and because our commune required unanimous consent for everything. If you wanted to pursue 'diversity of tactics' at least one pacifist would always vote you down, but there were people we ostracized who moved to other countries.

In practice, we mostly just did a lot of charity work. Filled potholes, patched roofs, planted community gardens. We also ran a few co-ops, including a coffee shop and an unlicensed bar.