"But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols."
So you don't even get to be violent with open racists as long as they aren't actively hurting people.
A social group of CPAs, an alumni group of university, and a French expat mom's group are all examples of groups, though exclusive, unlike neo-Nazis, do not reject the equal rights of others to enjoy the same bar.
It is an unambiguous goal of neo-Nazis (and their historical antecedents) to claim racially exclusive spaces, whether in bars entire societies. They have an entire rationale for this, connected to the original Nazi concept of Lebensraum ("living space"). They act it out against people of color (and their white friends) by intimidating them bars and restaurants. It's not hard to find someone who has been subject to this. I certainly have.
However, they aren't the only group to "claim" spaces exclusively for themselves through intimidation - the KKK, organized crime, and criminally associated biker gangs do it too, so you are right that one shouldn't point fingers exclusively at Nazis. But in the context of bars in particular neo-Nazis are the most widely culturally understood example of this behavior.
Also strangely, the United States has such strong free speech and association protections that Nazis were protected enough to march through Skokie, and yet there has been no such struggle with Naziism - except to join the other Allies in smashing the Reich.
Yes, Popper didn't stutter, those who do not reject debate in favour of violence should be tolerated.
Correct. But that's because fascism is the logical conclusion of capitalism. The State maintains a "social-liberal" republic which is nothing like a democracy but instead a hypocrisy reproducing systems of privileges.
We are stuck in a cognitive dissonance where we are told it's all about freedom & equality but all institutions around us do the exact opposite, and in parallel we're conditioned for being docile in the face of authority and extreme injustice. Both these conditions create a perfect ground for fascism to take root.
We have to remember fascism was born from "liberal" (= economic injustice) republics of the early 20th century and was based on myths distilled by public school systems and the media. Hitler did not invent racial hierarchies (they were common across all "democracies" of the time) and Mussolini did not invent state planning.
> United States has such strong free speech (...) there has been no such struggle with Naziism
Because in the US white supremacy is not called nazism, and may be more concerned with black/indigenous/latinx people rather than jews. In both cases, so-called "sexual deviancy" is also of concern to these people. Just because you don't see swastikas everywhere and Hitler is not the most popular figure in the USA doesn't erase the dozens of millions of people enslaved or killed due to their ethnicity, and the existence of white-supremacist discourse and militia across the country.
Britain and the US were far more capitalist for far longer and haven't had a problem with National Socialism like Germany's.
> Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power
Both US and UK have (or at least have had) a strong central government abusing power against its local population, laws based on racial hierarchies, a strong military-industrial complex, very close relations between industry leaders and politicians, pillaged/exploited/mass-murdered local and remote communities, maintained gender-based segregation and hierarchies, supported dictatorial/genocidal regimes across the planet in the name of fighting for "freedom" against communism and independent 3rd world countries... all of which are typical characteristics of fascist regimes.
But to be clear, i didn't mean that capitalism equates fascism (although the premises of both systems are uncomfortably-close), but rather that the atomization of capitalist society (in the form of private property, and everyone having to struggle against everyone else to survive) is a prerequisite to legitimize the absolute central power of fascism, under which hope and solidarity don't have a place.
I also mean that historically, in all countries - to my knowledge - where fascism has taken roots, the local bourgeoisie and industry were directly responsible for that. Hitler for example, had wide industry support (financial and logistical) for his campaign, as he was promising to do away with "judeo-bolshevism" and outlaw unions. There's an entire documentary about that called "Fascism Inc" that can be found on the Internet if learning about history is your thing (and of course, countless books on the topic).
Competition is a fact of life, and private property is a pre-requisite to freedom. Fascism is just one more form of collectivism that crushes individuality, and thus freedom and hope. I'm not interested in that kind of solidarity and the link you've provided is tenuous.
Regardless, freedom of speech is more effective than hate speech laws in staving off fascism, history, if not good sense, shows us that.
The story of how a bar becomes a Nazi bar applies to any community, not just bars. Karl Popper didn't stutter.