Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post. I really appreciate your views and insight.

Most present-day Socialists are Communists of some form. All Communists are Socialists, a large amount of Anarchists are Communists (see: Anarcho-Communism), and Democratic Socialists, as far as I'm aware, are also Communists, but advocate for a democratic approach to achieving Socialism and Communism.

This is a quick, more efficient, and overall better way to explain what I was trying to communicate.

Neo-Nazis spreading their ideology is not free speech, it's hate speech and the manifestation of an existential threat against all those who Nazis oppose. This is to say, advocacy of Nazism is, in and of itself, a genocidal threat, and should be struck down fervently.

We’re supposed to have legal protections against hate speech, but in the event that legislation is not enforced by the state, you feel it is best and most effective for people to try and counter this through... violence? You have no concern over where the escalation may lead? Especially considering many who identify as Communist aren’t adequately armed compared to either the fascist organizers or state?

So are you advocating for Nazis to spread their ideology in America to change the system to Nazism?

Me believing that people should be able to express how they truly feel in public is not the same as me supporting the rise of nazism.

These people are going to support whatever ideology they’re going to support, whether it’s in public or private. At least if it’s in public, the odds of there being a healthy dialogue are higher, and for the more cynical of us, we can keep tabs on those who hold certain views.

Handing power over to the people or state to decide who or what is good or bad can turn for the worst quickly if history is any indication of anything.

And, furthermore, you qualify that people have the right to the "public arena as a 'platform' to spread ideals (no matter how toxic)", but does this not also invoke the stark opposition to those views?

Sure.

And, to pick out another thing, you say "Every person should be able to speak their mind in public America"; is this just an appeal to the constitution created by a bourgeois political system a few hundred years ago? And why specifically America? Do you view Germany as violating human rights for banning the public expression and display of Nazi imagery?

You can frame it as an appeal to the bourgeois (you squeeze the constitution in there, but that’s virtually what you’re saying), but it’s a human right that I believe in, regardless of who has codified it and where.

In response to your question on Nazi imagery in Germany: Do Nazis still exist in Germany? Does Nazi sentiment still remain?

I support the banning of Nazi imagery, but I can also acknowledge that this is but only a self-satisfying, squeaky clean, bandaid approach to fighting fascist ideology. It makes me feel good and safe on the surface, but says little to me about how the ideology of Nazism is being combatted in an intellectual sense within Germany (through public or private institutions controlled by either the state or private organizations).

Nazism in and of itself is "literally threatening" entire races and ethnicities, not to mention the disabled, LGBT and non-Nazis.

So is the state/government. Some of the state/government is made up of neo-Nazis. Again, I ask you like I ask others, what do you do about that? If you advocate for violent war, then so be it.

So you think the KKK's existence is justified? You think it's good to have organizations like the Golden Dawn or Stormfront actively promoting and promulgating institutional violence, discrimination and harm to various minorities? You think that it's good for anti-Feminists to be in places of power to say that a raped woman is the one responsible for being raped?

You can’t stop humans from feeling and thinking whatever it is they feel and think without either speaking to the issues, or killing them. I think we should be trying to get to why these things exist under the umbrella of capitalism and fighting this instead of only focusing on trying to eliminate the byproducts of it.

Fascism and its various ideological branches including misogynistic behaviors are the epitome of controlling the ability of one to speak and express themselves. You don't fight cancer by letting it express itself, you aggressively eliminate it. Nazis are analogous to an anti-human cancer.

There’s a difference between the ideology and the implementation of it. It seems like you’re trying to conflate the two.

One could theoretically posit that our focus should be on preventing the implementation of fascist policies or ideologies, and removing them from all of our institutions. This would have a profound effect, but still wouldn’t eliminate the ideologies themselves. This is precisely where structuralism comes into play.

Of course they aren't the same thing, but the legitimization of hateful views allows the propagation of undeniably worse institutional violence which promotes colonialism, nativism, racism, misogyny, islamophobia and other institutional systems which seek to constantly disadvantage almost all minority groups, especially in America.

When you say “legitimization,” what exactly are you saying? Is being free to think whatever you think and express it through words alone legitimate? Yes, and it should be. If what you happen to think and express is hateful towards others, then what matters is having institutions and structures in place that prevent tangible acts that stem from these views and put others in harms way from being implemented. The views are going to continue to exist regardless. The focus should be on minimizing the extent to which they exist. If you feel silencing public display on said views plays a role in this somehow, then you’re entitled to that opinion. I’m not mad at legislation that bans hateful ideologies from being shared, but I know it won’t put an end to them.

This is an incredibly liberal, pro-status-quo position to take. A significant portion of laws serve primarily to attack the working class, notably laws in relation to drugs. While social rules and regulations in the context of a Socialist system may accurately fit your description, they most certainly do not in a Capitalist one. Or, if they do, it is the very idea of the Capitalist system being "stable" that perpetuates the oppression of the majority of the entire world.

I was referring to laws and regulations in “theory,” not in actual practice under a capitalist system. I could’ve made that more clear. I’m also not advocating for “status-quo,” but can acknowledge the negative outcome of violent measures that look to press past/through the legislative structure that’s been established within America.

I believe that your assertions are heavily influenced by the presiding "centrist" hegemony that is seen especially in America. I think that, while not outright reactionary, only serves to aid the reactionary side of the political spectrum by taking too lax of a stance on Fascism. Promoting the allowance of the advocacy of people who want to murder countless millions of people and eliminate the freedoms of countless others is, in my view, indirect advocacy of these groups, intentional or not, as allowing an ideology predicated on hyper-violence to have a platform is effectively facilitating said ideology.

I think this last point you’ve raised is more than clear, and I do feel I’ve spoken to it in my response here.